Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 4 November 6 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the topic fails GNG. No other compelling rationale for keeping has been given. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ilana Mercer[edit]

Ilana Mercer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only sources I can find for this article are affiliated or unreliable. Virtually every "biography" is the same PR bio. Nobody appears to have written about her other than her PR bio as a sidebar to her byline. She does seem to enjoy a certain popularity (e.g. with Jordan Peterson), but actual sources for Wikipedia notability are eluding me right now. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although I could change my mind if someone tracks down more sourcing. I'm kind of surprised there isn't more. Mercer is mentioned in this article from the SPLC and this article from Slate, and this one from the Baffler. If the article is kept, it definitely needs to avoid white washing her background. This article should probably also be deleted - maybe we could spin both in to this deletion discussion? Nblund talk 01:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see how this page violates any terms of Wiki. Okay, so all the bios of her are similar ... so what? People's stories tend to the be the same. The SPLC and Slate articles mentioned are in my opinion slander, as they try and paint Mercer a "white supremacist," something she isn't. Kc2290 (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC) — Kc2290 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The issue is that her personal bio is not enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines. We need to establish that she is notable by citing reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Her personal bio is neither independent nor reliable. The Slate and SPLC sources are actually helpful for establishing her notability, so if you're saying those aren't acceptable, there are really zero sources supporting her relevance. Nblund talk 02:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: I can't find any RS to indicate that http://www.sanfranciscoreviewofbooks.com is connected to the San Francisco Review of Books - which ceased publication in the late 90s. It looks to be a blog page that is piggy-backing on the name recognition of a defunct periodical. Graham Seibert, the author of that Mercer review, appears to be another person who is not notable outside of a few columns for a white nationalist publication. Whether or not we "like" the American Renaissance or WorldNetDaily isn't really the issue: both are unreliable fringe publications which don't do anything to establish the notability of this author. Nblund talk 18:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Nblund, There's been a spate of these, online book reviews with plausible-sounding names publishing unedited reviews by unpaid writers, and being cited as reliable sources in articles. I am delighted to NOTE that we have deleted the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York Journal of Books (I took Teh New York Journal of Books to RS noticeboard about a year ago and got shot down.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the "Quarterly Review" that Mercer is mentioned published in is running the same scam - it's a wordpress website that is completely unrelated to the periodical. It also appears to primarily publish members of the suit-and-tie racism circuit like Paul Gottfried and Taki Theodoracopulos. Nblund talk 18:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the AfD notice and the maintenance tag back to the page that @Kc2290: previously removed. Please don't do that again. Doesn't appear to pass GNG as an overwhelmingly majority of the refs in the article are, her personal blog, her personal website and articles at World Net Daily that she wrote. We need independent third-party sources that significantly discuss her. I agree with Nblund that I could change my mind too, but for now it's Delete. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I took the time to run more searches, but what I find is material she published, not WP:SIGCOV, or, frankly, not almost any coverage of her. Her books, columns are out there, but I cannot find writers or media of any note engaging with them. Results on a Proquest news archive search were unique, in my experience, in the high proportion of letters to the editor that her columns provoke. What I am not seeing is sources that support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that her book Into the Cannibal's Pot appears to fail WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Not Notable; doesnt meet GNG. The Slate and SPLC articles are getting there, but they're not really in depth. Couldn't find any other references outside of the walled garden of fringe sources she writes for. She may get attention from the mainstream press one day, but she doesnt seem to have gotten there yet. The same goes for Into the Cannibal's Pot- found another review here [1]- (available through Academic Onefile if anyones interested) by Clyde Wilson, but its just as fringey as the rest. Curdle (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I went ahead and listed Into_the_Cannibal's_Pot for deletion. Discussion is here
  • Comment This article clearly does not warrant deletion. Mercer is a fairly well-known columnist on the Libertarian Right. Her column is syndicated. She has had three well received books published and has appeared and television and radio programs such as The Sean Hannity Show, The Mike Church Show and Russia Today. Kc2290 (talk) 06:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom – this is long overdue, kudos to Guy for bringing it here. Despite the constant COI promotion in the article, she's not notable. Her book Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With a Corrupt Culture is held in 37 libraries world-wide; it was published by Toad Tomes Publishers, and according to WorldCat is the only volume ever published by that ancient and august house. Into The Cannibal's Pot: Lesson for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa is held in 41 libraries, and was published by Stairway Press, which offers "complete marketing services powered by online media, social media and internet communities, professional editing and world class graphic design" to aspiring authors. The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Deconstructed is held in 8 libraries; it was published by Politically Incorrect Press, which according to WorldCat has never published any other title. Just for comparison, Fear: Trump in the White House by Bob Woodward is held in 1538 libraries; the publisher, Simon & Schuster, has about 93,858 titles in WorldCat. By a remarkable co-incidence, both Politically Incorrect Press and Toad Tomes Publishers are in Issaquah, Washington; it would be interesting to know if Mercer has any reliably-documented connection to that metropolis. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added bio information that isn't just a "PR bio," and they are from reliable sources.One article written by a 3rd arty and one an interview with subject, yet, every time I make an edit, the template is brought back. To me this discussion is closed. Kc2290 (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Ilana Mercer page: with everything taken into account it meets the notability criteria.
WP:WEB "If the individual web content has received no or very little attention from independent sources, then it is not notable..."
  • Comment Woodward had been the most famous journalist--writer in the world for 50 years, and is hardly a cheerleader for Trump. Comparing Mercer to another writer who favours Trump would show there is not a subtle form of selective bias inherent in the mainstream book author notability requirements you are applying. Although two mainstream independent books do not mention Mercer, Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism.” by George Hawley a professor of political science at the University of Alabama, and WE WHO DARED TO SAY NO TO WAR American Antiwar Writing from 1812 to Now by Murray Polner and Thomas E. WoodsJr. the authors of both have said it was a definite oversight not to include her in their book. Dr. Hawley said “In retrospect, it was a mistake to omit [Ilana Mercer] from the section on paleolibertarianism,” and “the mistake will not be repeated,” and that it may even be amended in updates to the text in time for the release of the paperback edition". “Not featuring you was a regrettable oversight,” admitted Dr. Woods, this was in relation to Mercer's writing for Antiwar.com ect. See http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=864. I think that if expert authors agree she is noteworthy enough for their books on right wing and antiwar thought respectively, then she passes the notability test. For almost 20 years she was nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate "and not only is Mercer a veteran paleolibertarian writer. She is unquestionably the most visible, the most widely read, of such contemporary writers." according to Jack Kerwick, here. There is a case for deletion at first blush, but on close inspection it seems weak. The page on her does/did have serious problems with neutrality, tone, balance and promotion, but what page on a living writer doesn't? The page on Mercer specifically formerly mentioned and links to a page on an old book of hers that had a title central to the controversy that drew the not entirely admiring attention to her that one can detect above. The page on that book should not exist I agree, and the Ilana Mercer page needs more balance and less puff for her books (page seems to have been pared down quite critically).Overagainst (talk)
So, she meets WP:SIGCOV because of these two books that didn't mention her? Mercer herself is the source for both quotes, and I don't see any indication that either author mentioned Mercer in subsequent publications. Nblund talk 18:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm once again removing the notice of deletion. The subject is noteworthy and deserving a Wikipedia article. Kc2290 (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Etheredge[edit]

Mark Etheredge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable jazz musician. Natg 19 (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all albums are released by his personal record label, which apparently has no other artists signed to it. Article wording is borderline promotional. Deb (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Specifically, Has released two or more albums ... on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). He meets the one or more ... indie labels part, but not the important indie labels requirement. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:45, 13 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 22:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles about things which are artificial[edit]

List of articles about things which are artificial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A completely useless list. List of articles about things which are yellow, List of articles about things which are useless. Why not? By the way, is hammer an artificial thing or natural? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Coolabahapple:: I had the page on my watchlist so noticed this AfD but was wondering whether anyone would think to notify me as the page creator. I created the page as a split from Artificial (disambiguation), which in 2013 was mostly a list of many partial title matche articles. This seemed the least aggressive way to tidy up the dab page. The long list had been the work of many editors over many years - see its gradual development in the page history from 2005 to 2013. I don't feel strongly either way over whether it now gets deleted or kept. The various entries in the "See also" section cover most cases. PamD 15:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fails WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON -- RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sextuplets (film)[edit]

Sextuplets (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Upcoming movie, which does not pass WP:NFF. 1l2l3k (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Principal photography has begun, so it does actually pass NFF. JustaFilmFan (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, actually beginning photography doesn't make them notable. Read the last paragraph of NFF ("Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines."). What case can you make about the production being notable? --1l2l3k (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it’s too soon and clearly the only source is Deadline. That’s certainly not enough.Trillfendi (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 22:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Ralph[edit]

Tamara Ralph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of these awards are important; none of the references substantial. The articles is part of an promotional campaign for the individual and her company--see the adjacent AfD for the article on the company, which essentially duplicates the content. . DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Ralph & Russo. Tamara Ralph, as well as her company, has received significant coverage in multiple, independent, well-established, reliable news sources, as well as in fashion journals. Being included on Fortune magazine's 40 under 40 list is significant; it is a listing of those under 40 considered to have power and influence, and fellow listees the year Tamara Ralph was listed included CEOs and founders of companies like Google, Yahoo, AirBnB, Pinterest, Instagram, Uber, Tata Starbucks, Spotify, etc. Inclusion on that list is most definitely not unimportant! Tamara Ralph designs the fashions without which Ralph & Russo would not have a business. She clearly meets WP:CREATIVE Many other fashion designers have their own article - the fact that this article could be greatly improved is not a reason to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaGreen (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - with Ralph & Russo. Commenting on both Tamara Ralph's and Ralph & Russo's discussions, but the collective subject seems to meet the criteria. I'm cautious of inherited notability here, despite the fact there is notability here somewhere I don't think deleting both articles is the answer. The Vogue and The Times references that have already been mentioned seem very in-depth. A few others in the FT and British press seem to cover them well, so for me pass general notability. The question is, does the subject warrant two articles or one? I say keep Ralph & Russo, but merge Tarama Ralph's article, as the brand seems to get the most coverage.FelixFLB (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep regardless of how the articles were created, they do appear to be of notable subjects who have garnered significant references and critical attention. No Swan So Fine (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 08:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Herald[edit]

Jonathan Herald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as a doctor under GNG or ANYBIO. Most notable aspect is serving on editorial board of Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports, which does not itself appear to be notable. Even if it was, Herald's merely being on the editorial board does not seem like enough to pass any notability threshold. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with the above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete There is a bit more available in a number of IRS about what the subject does, and the article could be expanded a bit. The subject has also co-authored a number of papers, some as lead author, some of which have been cited a non trivial number of times. Not sure though that there is quite enough to be notable. (If the subject played any code of football the article would be a speedy/snow keep.) I am open to being convinced to keep. Aoziwe (talk) 10:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Have found a couple of suitable articles via ProQuest and will add them to article to see if that helps justify the page. Cabrils (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was there any kind of DOI for the two sources you added? I'd like to look at them if I have access to them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find sources to support notability. Natureium (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete surgeon marketing. We have seen this show before.Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ozan Boz[edit]

Ozan Boz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relatively minor producer, with no sources found to indicate the independent notability of his work under WP:CREATIVE, while his musical guest appearances do not satisfy WP:NMUSIC. Most of the article's text is not about him but about records he produced. Of the eight sources currently in the article (5 Nov.), he is not mentioned in the first four. Sources 5-7 mention him only briefly as producer of the item. He was indeed nominated for an award as seen in source #8, but I can find nothing else beyond run-of-the-mill listings and basic credits. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG, sourcing isn’t significant coverage towards the subject, looks more like a case of WP:BOMBARD. Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per nom, and much too promotional for my liking. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Anthem (Abhay Kumar song)[edit]

Earth Anthem (Abhay Kumar song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough. Already covered in Abhay_Kumar#Poet. Both this article as well as Abhay Kumar (which was heavily trimmed by me) were largely edited by Kalhause who very likely has conflict of interest issues. Much of Earth Anthem (Abhay Kumar song) was moved from Earth Anthem.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 20:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If somebody wants to try to rescue some of this, per Mindmatrix, let me know and I can restore this to userspace. But, before you volunteer for that, please understand that any merged material from here would need to be referenced so it meets WP:V and WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seedrioru[edit]

Seedrioru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Virtually unreferenced article about an organization. As always, every organization is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- to qualify, it has to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. While there is one actual piece of media coverage in the contextless linkfarm of external links ("Estonian Express, Article 2007"), clearing ORGDEPTH (or even just basic GNG) takes a lot more than just one piece of coverage, but the rest of the external links are primary sources rather than reliable or notability-building ones. There's very likely some form of conflict of interest editing here as well, because this is tarted up with a truly incredible volume of deep detail and history that can't possibly have been gleaned from reliable sources by an unaffiliated observer -- in my 15 years of contributing to Wikipedia, this is a pretty strong candidate for the longest article I've ever seen without a single footnote to actually reference any of the content. Simply put, the sourcing isn't cutting the mustard in terms of making this organization notable enough for inclusion, and nothing claimed in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to cut mustard. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the same article was the subject of a declined draft (Draft:Seedrioru Estonian Summer Camp for those that can view deleted pages) only six days before this article was created. This is an expanded version of the draft article. Mindmatrix 19:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: perhaps something from this page could be salvaged into a new Estonian diaspora in Canada or the existing Estonian Canadians, but that would require some time investment to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. Mindmatrix 19:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanophile[edit]

Hispanophile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub's citations consist solely of three dictionaries' entries on this term. Of those three dictionaries, two have apparently deleted their entries. Searching online results in dictionary entries and mirror sites. Wiktionary already has an entry on this term, and even there it lacks sources and attestations. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a database of non-notable neologisms.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum: All of the citations verify only the definition, leaving the section that lists the people who are allegedly Hispanophiles entirely unsourced. I have removed the one BLP there.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t think there are known scholarly articles to substantiate it.Trillfendi (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above Spiderone 12:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luiz Cesar Pimentel[edit]

Luiz Cesar Pimentel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable. There's not one independent reliable source in the article, and searches of GNews and GBooks do not yield anything much. His book Jesus: Uma reportagem is not in WorldCat. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm skeptical, due to single digit WporldCat numbers [2] and the fact that the article was created by an SPA. I found half a dozen mentions in a Proquest news archive search, stuff like being quoted as "director of content for MySpace in Brazil." And an article that about works of fiction inspired by discs, and " published only on the internet and can be downloaded for free at www.mojobooks.com." including Pimental's " "Technique", New Order by Ricardo Giasse, "# 1 Record" by Big Star." Delete for lack of notability. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I removed form the page 3 links that led to sites selling Pimental 's ebooks. This leaves the page with 3 citations, all to the Wikipedia Portuguese. Fails WP:SIGCOV. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:41, 12 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. Sources presented to support GNG are either routine hiring / firing reports or are actually the person discussion the club he manages rather than a third party discussing the manager. Nothing has been presented to suggest he has received significant coverage in a number of third party sources per GNG. Fenix down (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Gill (football manager)[edit]

John Gill (football manager) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFOOTY, having not played or managed in a fully professional league, or played international football. No indication of significant coverage to otherwise satisfy WP:GNG. Jellyman (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Dundalk F.C. certainly a pro club, Dublin City F.C. in 2003–2004 potentially also professional as won LoI 1st Div twice in those years, Drogheda United also a fully pro club, St Pats big club in the country; overall probably enough to satisfy WP:GNG and through the backdoor WP:NFOOTY Abcmaxx (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - the League of Ireland is not a WP:FPL, so he fails WP:NFOOTY (fully professional clubs in a semi-professional league still do not meet NFOOTY). He should have coverage somewhere, whether in print or online, from a more than 30-year career in Ireland, but I wasn't able to find any WP:SIGCOV. Unless someone can find the coverage to change my !vote, I've got to go delete. 21.colinthompson (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. @Abcmaxx: interpretation of NFOOTBALL is just wrong. The LOI is not a fully-pro league. GiantSnowman 09:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep managed Dundalk, one of the most important teams in the country. Coverage is thorough but more on the routine side but still has made national Irish news, coverage on him specifically like so: [3] [4] [5] I think there's enough here to keep and heartily disagree with any "fails WP:NFOOTY" !votes - Gill has to be analysed on WP:GNG grounds. SportingFlyer talk 09:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and coverage seems to be typical routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Martin (baseball)[edit]

Josh Martin (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable baseball player. Clearly does not pass WP:NBASE. I think this is the most significant coverage and so I would argue for reasons I lay out in detail in this essay that he does not pass GNG. Owing to being a minor league free agent, and if signed likely an organizational depth guy, there's no good redirect target. If he were to get a major league appearance I think this nomination has about as much text as the article and so he could easily be recreated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable.Yankees10 02:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This probably would've been a successful WP:PROD. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: My thinking was that Lugubrious DBB had just restored this from a redirect instead of RfD or restoring and PROD'ing and so I took that to mean it would not be uncontroversial. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Nothing wrong with an abundance of caution. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. And I've blocked Kakkumaa as a advertising-only account. Sandstein 18:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leisure Travels[edit]

Leisure Travels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears not to meet WP:N, lack of notability. Of the sources cited, one is a Top 100 list which doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH, and the other two look like press release placements. An online search turns up nothing, mostly the phrase "leisure travels" used generically and companies with more specific names like "Orbit Leisure Travels", "Tarz Leisure Travels", "GnS Leisure Travels", and so on. I don't see any genuine coverage of this Leisure Travels. Largoplazo (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the generic company name doesn't help but I really can't find any English-language sources here. The ones provided, as you say, are completely unacceptable. Spiderone 19:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article on an online travel agency, created with similar text and maintenance templates to other firms (Cleartrip). A routine listing, placement in a non-notable source's industry segment top-100 list (without stated inclusion criteria), and a special-offer press release placed on multiple sites are insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches are finding nothing to suggest this is more than a run-of-the-mill firm; fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stay on Wikipedia

After 8 years of work experience in Airlines, Hospitality & Tourism sector in the national capital of India Delhi , during my services I have traveled extensively within India , China , Thailand, Malaysia , Singapore , Dubai ,Egypt , Turkey , United Kingdom ,Nepal, Bhutan , Bangladesh and gained dept knowledge of tourist destination and culture of the said country and to share my knowledge to the people who love to travel , i started Leisure Travels in the year 2010. as proprietorship Farm in Guwahati, The Gateway of Northeast India.

Over these years the trust of our estimated clients has grown and with it we have grown as well. so we have expanded our business With head office in Guwahati and a sales office in Delhi , Siliguri and London . we also registered our brand as Private Limited Company in the year 2016, as named Leisure Travels & Hospitality Pvt.Ltd.

recognised / Member / Office Bearer:

Approved by: Ministry of Tourism – Govt. of India

Approved by: Ministry of Tourism – Govt. of Assam

Active Member: Tour Operators Association of Assam ( TOAA) - Jt. Secretary

Allied Member: Indian Association of Tour Operators ( IATO )

Active Member: Association of Domestic Tour Operators of India ( ADTOI )

Active member: North East Tour Operators Association ( NEITO ) - Jt. Secretary

Kakkumaa (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you're using Wikipedia to advertise your company. Sorry, but that isn't allowed. Also, this has nothing to do with the reputability of your company. Largoplazo (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should remain in Wikipedia

Leisure Travels is one of the best Travel agency in northeast India. It is also one of the reputed govt. registered Travel Company. Anowarh24 (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the best according to whom? Spiderone 10:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, not a "best of" list or a directory of all businesses that have properly registered to operate. Largoplazo (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep the article, especially in light of the recently added references (the original problem was "Unreferenced. May not exist") (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harlem Children Society[edit]

Harlem Children Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced. May not exist Rathfelder (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 00:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As expected, there are more references in blogs and lesser-known sites. Den... (talk) 10:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Den, refbombing will not persuade editors that this passes WP:ORG. For example, your first link above is to the NYTimes, clicking leads to a listing of events for children on a particular weekend in New York City. The featured event (which gets several paragraphs) is a medieval festival. 27 events follow, 2-3 sentences each, of which one is the Harlem Science Yatra and Street Fair sponsored by this organization. It would be helpful to other ediotr here is you would select the articles in your long list that provide WP:SIGCOV of this ORG. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @E.M.Gregory: thanks for the advice. You are correct. Sorry for refbombing (WP:CITEKILL). Lesson learned. I should have been more selective and more explicative on just a few sources. Honestly, I am just learning how to debate and offer evidence and arguments effectively through this medium. Still, my position holds. I spent many hours looking carefully through these sources, and comparing them with the WP:NORG guidelines, and I am thoroughly convinced that this organization passes the test for the reasons I badly tried to explain above, and much more. Three important aspects I should have highlighted or focused on: 1) NSF research grant (here, here and here) 2) the broad international coverage that it received through the research project led by molecular geneticist Sat Bhattacharya, 3) the NY legislature resolution. I also noticed a page with complaints (here). I just ask now you take my WP:GF and research the topic on your own and share your thoughts. Most likely you will do it better than what I did. Den... (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the references to the article is even more convincing.Rathfelder (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete(changing to keep due to developments below): despite the references brought up by Den... I don't see any of them meeting the required level of coverage. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I did my own searching and found a large number of mentions and other things that don't contribute to WP:GNG. But, I also found:
    • "Harlem Children Society Searches for the Einstein of the Bronx". The New York Sun. Retrieved 13 November 2018.
    • "EDUCATION: Taking Science into the Streets | Inter Press Service". ipsnews.net. Retrieved 13 November 2018.
    • Mirsky, Steve. "The Harlem Science Renaissance". Scientific American. Retrieved 13 November 2018.
    • "J2958". NY State Senate. Retrieved 13 November 2018.
All of which I see are also in Den's list above. Of these, the Sun article is the strongest, but the IPS piece is pretty good too. The SciAm item is an odd case. It's an interview, which we generally downweight for WP:N purposes, but SciAm is a pretty solid publication. An interview there counts for more than an interview in a lot of other places. I'll admit the NY State legislative resolution doesn't count for much; these get handed out like candy to any worthy cause. I do question how much WP:BEFORE effort was put into this nomination. I suspect none. Finding sufficient solid sources to establish WP:V was trivial. WP:N is not as clear, but I think we've got enough here to go on. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: updated my !vote to include Weak, so as to not overstate my evaluation. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found an additional source:
"Taking Note on JSTOR". jstor.org. Retrieved 14 November 2018..
This is also in Den's list, above, but the JSTOR version is the full text. I'm not sure if the JSTOR license allows me to make extensive quotes, so I'll just summarize it by saying it's about 200 words and describes the basic history, educational model, community outreach programs, and some statistics. I suspect it's somewhat of a rehash of HCS promotional material, but the fact that the National Science Teachers Association elected to print it gives it some credence. It's certainly not enough to meet WP:GNG by itself, but adds to my impression that the educational community has taken note of them. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:42, 14 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 18:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Mossack[edit]

Peter Mossack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable "interim director" of a company in in the news for it's connection to The Panama Papers scandal. The wording in the lede is ambiguous, but this subject is not the co-founder of the company; rather, his brother Jürgen Mossack is. No depth coverage to support WP:GNG; notability is not inherited. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There was coverage about the subject in 2016 when the article was created, but this is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Sdmarathe (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skycoin[edit]

Skycoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP:GNG. It was declined in AfC numerous times for the same reason. The references are contributor pieces, the official website, or industry publications. The rest are brief mentions that are not in-depth for notability. CNMall41 (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I did approve this from AfC, but I completely agree with CNMall41. There is no substantial coverage in independent reliable sources and what sources there are do not demonstrate the notability of the subject. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The article is almost entirely based on poor sources. There is virtually no coverage in reliable sources. Retimuko (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hyperbolick (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment @Hyperbolick: Please be aware that this is not a vote. Your entry can (and should) be ignored if you do not present any reasonable arguments to support your position. See WP:JUSTAVOTE Retimuko (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Sources for the article include Forbes, Reuters, The United Nations, CNBC, Bloomberg, Nasdaq, MIT and the BBC. The page already contains significantly more numerous and more reliable sources than the majority of cryptocurrency pages on Wikipedia (none of which are marked for deletion). For example Cardano (platform), zcash, PotCoin, Synereo, or indeed most of the cryptocurrency platforms listed here List of cryptocurrencies. And please don't just quote Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists - there should be a degree of consistency. Wikipedia has accepted a large number of cryptocurrency pages with inferior sources and much less notability than the Skycoin page. Peak Debt (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except WP:OTHERSTUFF is 100% applicable to your argument. If there are issues with other pages, they need to be dealt with separately. For the references you mentioned above, can you point out which ones are in-depth and talk about Skycoin in detail (not just brief mentions)?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF might apply if there was only a small percentage of similar pages, but when the vast majority of cryptocurrency pages on Wikipedia (dozens of pages) contain fewer sources, of similar or lower quality, then that's a precedent.
The United Nations video discusses Skycoin technology several times, and the NASDAQ video is entirely about Skycoin (the video was published by the official NASDAQ account).
The Bloomberg source is entirely about Skycoin.
The Forbes articles (which you removed) were entirely or substantially about Skycoin (I don't see any Wikipedia rule that says Forbes articles are unreliable if published by a contributor).
The Binance article on Medium that announced the Binance/Skycoin partnership was also removed because "medium is unreliable". But that article was published by the official Binance account. So why is it considered unreliable when Binance says it has a partnership with Skycoin, just because Binance chooses to make that announcement on Medium? (Binance also made the same announcement on Twitter).
Today I added a link to an article discussing the partnership between Skycoin and John McAfee. (McAfee also announced this on Twitter).
I know Wikipedia doesn't accept Twitter links as reliable, and I haven't included them in the article. But surely if they come from the official account they are actually reliable. Times are changing, and Wikipedia should perhaps recognize official/confirmed social media accounts (Youtube, Medium, Twitter etc.) as reliable sources. Peak Debt (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a precedent for deleting those articles too. Fortunately, we're fixing it bit by bit, and this AFD is part of that.
That it was mentioned in a video at the UN does not pass WP:RS.
The Bloomberg listing is a directory, not a news article.
Forbes contributor articles are literally unedited blog posts. The WP:RSN has long deprecated these.
Primary sources and passing mentions don't count for notability.
I just did a reference check on the article. Almost all sources are bad, and many are irrelevant and don't even mention Skycoin.
I urge you to read WP:RS and WP:RSN, all your questions here about Wikipedia sourcing are answered there - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. A video that was clearly recorded at a United Nations conference is reliable. The NASDAQ video is reliable.
The fact that Bloomberg lists Skycoin in its directory shows notability.
None of the sources are irrelevant. The few that don't specifically mention Skycoin are important for context.
Social media announcements from the official accounts of organizations like Binance should be considered reliable.
If you say "Almost all sources are bad" then you must agree that some are not bad. The article should be kept so that it can be improved upon, rather than deleted. Peak Debt (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peak Debt: Analyzing the "other" cryptocurrencies you mentioned to help give you an idea on what would make something notable enough. Cardano had an AFD closed as "no censensus" ealier this year. I'm not easily finding anything that would make it obviously notable but it has several mentions in Bloomberg (articles) while skycoin has zero. Zcash is easily more notable that most cryptocurrenices with coverage in New York Times, Washington Post, and Bloomberg. For PotCoin, Dennis Rodman's promotion of it during his North Korean trip might be enough. Synereo is probably the least notable and a good candidate for AFD. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should never have passed AfC, but we all make mistakes. This should have been speedy'd as a G11 as obvious promotion by a crypto enthusiast hoping to increase popularity in their coin of choice. Bkissin (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reuters is a "brand feature", United Nations is not from them it's to them, Bloomberg is a company profile not an article, NASDAQ video is an interview with their marketing director - not independent, MIT was used to say how bitcoin and ethereum have mining centralization while skycoin doesn't but skycoin isn't mentioned, BBC again doesn't mention skycoin. This source was used to show how ethereum's CryptoKitties had problems and oh look skycoin also has a cute blockchain game. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Missed CNBC, which is just a list of quotes from founders and CEOs like it says in the title - not independent coverage. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have imposed an indefinite topic ban on Peak Debt under WP:GS/Crypto, covering blockchain and cryptocurrencies (broadly construed). MER-C 21:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This ban is particularly unfair since almost all the sources were added to the article while it was in draft, before it was approved for creation, and I have never made any change to any other cryptocurrency page on Wikipedia. Peak Debt (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Striking comments of topic-banned editor. Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I think more effort needs to be exercised at judging informative cryptocurrency sites. Bias against crypto in general may make these sites appear as spammy when they're actually journalistic resources in relation to the general topic. The coincentral article, for example, focuses entirely on Skycoin and hosts a repository of information on different projects. Joelcuthriell (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC) — Joelcuthriell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This is likely a sock puppet or a friend of Peak Debt. It's only edit is to this AFD and they're both doing an all caps "KEEP". As for your argument with coincentral, I'm not saying it's an untrustworthy site but it's barely a year old while there are still discussions going on whether the five year old CoinDesk is acceptable to use (See WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251#RfC_on_use_of_CoinDesk for a recent one). My view is that sometimes it's okay to cite them in an article but they shouldn't be used to establish notability lest we have hundreds of new shitcoin (not even saying skycoin is a shitcoin) articles just because CoinDesk or some other coin site wrote about them one time. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment @Morgan Ginsberg: I would suggest not to throw accusations regarding sock-puppetry without serious evidence. You might be right, and it does look suspicious, but let us try to stay on topic and keep this discussion civil. Thank you. Retimuko (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, not my sockpuppet, however I have let a small group of fellow cryptocurrency enthusiasts know that this page has been nominated for deletion, and it's possible that some of them will offer their comments. I do not personally know the user Joelcuthriell. Peak Debt (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Striking comments of topic-banned editor. Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a first time contributor to discussion, I thought it prudent to conform to the existing format for sake of ease. Wikipedia editors have a stellar reputation for their professionalism, so I hope my first interaction on a discussion remains so. I noticed the initial edits today through an alert on Twitter for an account that watches Wikipedia edits: https://twitter.com/CryptoNewsBot/status/1059491155958816768 Joelcuthriell (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a decision is made to delete this article then can I please request for it to be moved into Draftspace instead so I can continue to work on it. There will be increasing media coverage about Skycoin in the future, especially after the recent partnerships with Binance and John McAfee. I also ask for my ban to please be lifted. This ban was unfair given that I used the already existing Cryptocurrency articles on Wikipedia as a guide when choosing my references, and almost all the references were added in draft before the article was approved for creation, I was never given any warning that I might be banned for adding these references and I have never edited any other Wikipedia cryptocurrency page. Peak Debt (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Striking comments of topic-banned editor. Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand. Your comments here blatantly violate your topic ban. The fact that you have never edited any other page is not in your favor. See single-purpose account. Retimuko (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My comments don't violate my topic ban. I am no longer editing a cryptocurrency article. I am only contributing to this discussion about possible page deletion. It would be rather unfair to propose deletion of the page and then ban me so I can't object to the proposed deletion, right? Insisting that the main contributor to the page is banned from commenting on the proposed deletion of the page reeks of bias and censorship. I have appealed the ban through the official channels on the following grounds.
1. I have only ever edited one cryptocurrency page, the Skycoin page.
2. I used the existing Cryptocurrency pages on Wikipedia as a guide, and used sources of similar or better quality. Sources included Forbes, Reuters, The United Nations, CNBC, Bloomberg, Nasdaq, MIT and the BBC.
3. Almost all these sources were added to the page while in draft, before it was approved. These sources were effectively approved by the administrator who subsequently approved the page for creation.
4. There was no edit war on the page. I was basically the only person working on it. So none of my edits were disruptive. I did not revert any changes made to the page by administrators or others.
5. I was not given any warning of a possible ban beforehand.
Also, I did not say I have never edited any other page. I said I have not edited any other *cryptocurrency* page. I have edited other non-cryptocurrency pages. My account was created eight years ago. The Skycoin page is the only *cryptocurrency* page I have contributed to in those eight years, but I have contributed to other topics. It is not a single-purpose account. Peak Debt (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Striking comments of topic-banned editor. Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your chances of success appealing your ban evaporate by the minute. I was trying to warn you, but you do not show any understanding of the policies. You are not supposed to touch any page even remotely related to cryptocurrencies, including this page, until your ban is removed. I see the notification about the community sanctions related to cryptocurrencies on your personal talk page. That was your warning, which you say you were not given. If you were around for eight years, you are supposed to know such things. Retimuko (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you're telling me I'm not allowed to reply to you, even on this discussion page? A notification about sanctions was posted along with the ban, but there was no prior warning that I could be banned simply for having certain references in the article. A topic ban is supposed to be a response to disruptive edits. Also, the notification of the proposed deletion specifically says that I am WELCOME to comment here. QUOTE "The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skycoin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion." Peak Debt (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC) Striking comments of topic-banned editor. Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No other alternative to deletion was given. According to the Wikipedia Deletion Policy this should only be a last resort when encountering an article that needs more scrutiny and better resources. If the article needs to be edited, it can be edited (cleanup) but if we follow with the deletion we're throttling that same process. Furthermore you're not following a Neutral point of view (NPOV) which is one of the oldest governing concepts on Wikipedia and this becomes pretty evident with the indefinite ban on the creator of the article. Can you give your reasoning behind that topic ban then? Because it looks like you'd rather not have this discussion altogether. I suggest that the article has a trial period in cleanup, in which the original editor (or anyone else who wishes to contribute) is allowed to demonstrate the notability of the topic and after that period is finished then a final decision is made. LexMccarty (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC) — LexMccarty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • DO NOT Delete Yes I'm not a logged in user but that shouldnt make my opinion less valid. I'm disturbed by what looks like a concerted effort to shut the creator of the page up by banning him or her on spurious grounds so they can't defend themselves. Ok the sky coin page needs more work but its not terrible and there are a few decent sources so why not let the page stay so it can be improved over time, isn;t that what wikipedia's supposed to be for??? deleting shouldn't be the first resort in my honest opinion and i know from the cryptocurrency world there is a lot of bias and people like to down talk and remove references to projects they don't like or ones competing with projects they have an interest in and it looks like some of that may be going on here— 1.129.110.55 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:23, November 6, 2018‎ (UTC).
  • KEEP This page looks no different than a lot of other cryptocurrency pages I have checked out. There is a lot of good info and some of the sources appear legitimate. Why delete it entirely instead of let it develop over time? As more people contribute, it will continue to become a better resource about the project.— 96.250.36.215 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 01:45, November 6, 2018‎ (UTC).
  • Delete per User:Bkissin logic which is what Inwas going to type. Should never have been passed through AfC and the person who approved it admits the mistake up top. These pages are magnets for POV pushers trying to promote their favorite scam "currency". All the post topic ban comments should be struck out. Legacypac (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The paucity and poor quality of the sources demonstrate the dearth of persistent and in-depth coverage in reliable sources required to indicate notability. They are majoritively unreliable—generic press releases or self-generated—and those that aren't are worse, being either passing mentions of little substance or WP:NOTDIRECTORY listings. ——SerialNumber54129 05:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Deletion is only a last resort and the information should be improved and developed. The whole point of Wikipedia is to gather information from as many legitimate sources as possible and that can work the other way, also. In time, as more mainstream sources continue to report and confirm the information on this page the original citations will be validated and could earn credibility to be used in other articles. Merely shutting this page down seems irresponsible considering the nature of the project, its goals and philosophies are very much in line with the Wikipedia Foundation.KonfuciousK (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)— KonfuciousK (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines. Promotional article about what is basically still a start-up. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: In case it isn't screamingly obvious, all of the "keep" !votes are from the article creator (who has now been topic banned from cryptocurrencies) and his possible socks or canvassed meatpuppets; none of the meatpuppets have ever edited Wikipedia before. Softlavender (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC); edited 00:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum to above note: Not only is it insulting to be called a "sock" or "meat puppet" it is also blatantly wrong and misinformed / badly investigated. I've never contributed to Wikipedia with content, that's fair enough, but I have many times through financial donation. Only reason I'm here now is because I was forced into the situation by, as you have just shown, bad moderation and investigation. This is a continually improving article and holds better citations than many others which are not even up for discussion of deletion.KonfuciousK (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link that directed people here was clearly posted above, and then a bunch of new users showed up, making their first comments on an AfD thread. It's not blatantly wrong in the slightest. SportingFlyer talk 11:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. No person walked on the moon before..until they did. This page should be left to develop further before being considered for deletion, as the Wikipedia Foundation says "it is better to improve an article than to delete it for not being good enough." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vundamere (talk • contribs) 10:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC) — Vundamere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Keep but edit/improve. Skycoin appears to be one of the more notable projects in the cryptocurrency space. It has existed for 5-6 years at least (I can't ref it as bitcointalk URLs are not allowed, but Google will show), so long before the current crypto hype, by some of the original bitcoin and ethereum developers[1]; has created and distributed hardware devices to thousands of people from what I've read; has been written about in China Daily, a huge state-owned newspaper with a digital presence getting over 30 million views a day, a couple times [2][3]; has been academically reviewed by notable professors from Tsinghua University[4] (pdf warning), the highest ranked engineering and computer science school in the world[5]; and has gotten a relatively notable amount of coverage by industry and non-industry sources.
Granted, the crypto space is rife with fraud and nonsense, so I think diligence on this topic is important - but from my research, this project seems to be legitimate and notable, and likely with proper editing the article could be made more useful to Wikipedia users. Jehnidiah (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/04/10/pyethereum-and-serpent-programming-guide/
  2. ^ http://tech.chinadaily.com.cn/2018-05/28/content_36284828.htm
  3. ^ http://tech.chinadaily.com.cn/2018-03/28/content_35934905.htm
  4. ^ http://storage.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn/~jiwu-shu/papers/sky%20an%20opinion%20dynamics%20framework%20and%20model%20for%20consensus%20over%20p2p%20network.pdf
  5. ^ https://www.usnews.com/info/blogs/press-room/articles/2017-10-24/us-news-announces-2018-best-global-universities-rankings
  • "has been academically reviewed by notable professors from Tsinghua University": That paper was written by "Houwu Chen and Jiwu Shu". Houwu Chen is listed as a founder on skycoin's website and his bio says "Houwu is one of the creators behind Ethereum, and the author of the Obelisk whitepaper which sits at the heart of our decentralized Internet and currency. He was formerly a PHD at Tsinghua University." I don't know Chinese but I highly suspect that the China Daily articles are paid for like the Reuters "brand feature" the other guy tried to pass off as something meaningful. Even if the China Daily articles are legit independent coverage WP:GNG says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." and they were the only sources posted so far that could potentially establish notability. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the more notable projects" so, bring the convincing WP:RSes to demonstrate this claim, because on the evidence so far this is completely incorrect - David Gerard (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: Jehnidiah, who rarely edits Wikipedia anymore, is either connected to the company (see these edits from three days ago [7], [8]), or was canvassed by the indef-blocked article creator. Softlavender (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not notable. It's probably just a ponzi scheme anyway. And it's led to a bunch of off-wiki activism to keep it in, which we should discourage. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could also be G11'd, fails WP:GNG and should not have been accepted to mainspace. SportingFlyer talk 11:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It could be G11'd...someone would remove the tag though! ——SerialNumber54129 12:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is a right mess. Used sources are poor quality and a quick search found almost no decent sourcing aside from a couple passing mentions. Not notable enough. Koldcuts (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have stricken all of the !votes of the canvassed meatpuppets of the indef-blocked article creator. Softlavender (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Poor quality WP:RSes. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote fundraising. We are not allowing every GoFundMe project on here for a reason. Once this project has actually produced a product or service that got reviewed and mentioned by reputable sources they can create the Wikipedia entry. Right now this is just a Website asking for money. Skyrant (talk) 09:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Wiggins[edit]

Linda Wiggins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, on spurious grounds. Non-notable supercentenarian. As established through many discussions simply being the oldest person in a country is not inherently notable, and the sources are simple routine coverage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep AFD nomination on spurious grounds as coverage of a 110 year old is hardly routine and the article already contains significant coverage in reliable sources such as The New Zealand Herald. Also these articles are not straightforward as a number of them have gone to deletion review where there has been many opposing views, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a couple of one-off articles. That's the definition of routine. And the DRVs in question had a huge and well-documented problem with massive off-wiki canvassing, so they're mostly useless for determining the actual consensus on these articles. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is sustained coverage from at least 2013-2018 (link by Newshunter12 below) so its not routine coverage and the subject easily passes WP:GNG. Therefore this is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination based on an interpretation of past consensus unless you can point to a policy reason for deletion, perhaps in WP:NOT, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in question are 4 news articles indicating she's celebrating One More Day Above The Roses, with no information other than she's lived a long time and had an extremely ordinary life. Other than updating her age, they're all a rehash of the same information easily recognized (at least on people with less than a 3-digit age) as thoroughly routine. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking the subject. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the fourth oldest x" is notable (The article incorrectly claims she is the oldest in the country, but the NZ Herald says she is the 4th oldest). The content of the article is pretty much just trivia on how she relates to her family's death dates or false claims to a longevity milestone, with some fluff about where she has lived and her secret to longevity. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on the List of supercentenarians by continent, where they are easier to view. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG talk 09:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being the oldest person in a substantial country like NZ is obviously not routine; it's a unique distinction and so the subject passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew D. (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew D. New Zealand is a small remote country and this individual is not even the oldest living person in New Zealand according to this very recent reliable source 1, but the fourth. There is also no policy or guideline that the oldest anything is notable or entitled to an article on Wikipedia. The oldest person in the U.S. doesn't even have an article because that is never an automatic grant of notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the three criteria of WP:ANYBIO does she pass? Definitely not 3, definitely hasn't made any contributions to a specific field and "being old" doesn't grant awards/honors. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to appropriate list per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. Fails WP:GNG as coverage is local and routine birthday articles. Even if these local articles made her "notable", there's nothing in this article that can't easily be summarised on a list as it won't expand beyond "Born, got married, had kids, grandkids, etc and got old". CommanderLinx (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect As per nom and others. Per WP:NOPAGE. Insufficient encyclopedic content to justify an article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 16:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to list where she is mentioned, List of supercentenarians by continent. The news coverage is sparse and mostly redundant. The only potential claim to notability is being the oldest person who lived in a small country (I don't see NZ as a "substantial country", as someone said above, if it has a population smaller than cities I've lived in). I just don't see how the standard of "received significant coverage" as required by WP:BIO is met. TimBuck2 (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SportingFlyer talk 22:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Cock[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Christina Cock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's been 3 years since the last AfD, and in that time a lot has changed. The original was beset with SPAs, many with a connection to the GRG, and the argument seemed to be that she was notable for being the oldest person in a country. There are a grand total of 5 sources, all of which are either one-off articles or entirely unremarkable routine coverage. As with all too many supercentenarian articles, WP:NOPAGE applies; she lived, she died, and aside from various longevity trivia there's almost no detail about her. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The topic is notable as five sources is plenty and notability does not expire. WP:NOPAGE is a silly argument because a separate page is obviously sensible for information about a particular person, whose name is a natural title and search string. And, in any case, that's all just guideline level quibbling. The actual policies which apply here are WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia on how she relates to other peoples longevity milestones or longevity milestones for various arbitrary categories, with some fluff about her health history and her offspring. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on five different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete strip the stuff about other super old people and you have a little trivia. I might guess that a really old person never got sick (really helps you get old) and she had a family. I agree with the nom's rational and that just above me. Legacypac (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes not especially remarkable but why is it not notable, and not of likely human interest. They are the oldest person in a country, continent, and planetary region. WP:NEXIST seems to be well satisfied. Why should someone who has lived such a long time not be more than just a row in a list table. Here are some references to her marriage, and her two daughthers: [9], [10], [11], [12], and [13]. There are also these references to her too. Aoziwe (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to provide you with verifiable bona fide RS journalistic sources referencing my marriage and my two sons. That does not make me notable. Even if I get really old, I'd need to do something remarkable in order to deserve "more than just a row in a list table". — JFG talk 09:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remarkability does not come into it. If remarkability was required then 90% of all sports people, horses, jockeys, never even one hit wonder music groups, and 99.99% of celebrities, who are only famous for being famous, etc., would also need to be deleted (a majority of wikipedia?). They just need to have been noted in IRS for having done it, and this subject has been noted for having lived an extraordinary long life by multiple IRS. Aoziwe (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remarkability. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. In addition, your comparisons are very different; they all are examples of people who did something in the first place, whereas these people did not do something (die). Unless the subject is already notable (c.f. Leila Denmark) or received signifcant coverage beyond getting to a certain position on the Angel of Death's hit list (such as Jiroemon Kimura), there's nothing beyond trivia to create a biography. (And for the record, I happen to think the number of athlete pages is way out of control but lack sufficient knowledge of any sport besides American baseball to be useful in drawing up criteria). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. Also, "oldest person in country X" is not a position or title with predecessors and successors, it's just random trivia. — JFG talk 09:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Her name, age and country are "recognised" on at least three different lists. And as per above, do you have any policy or guideline based reasoning for keeping? Because nowhere does it say "Living well past the average lifespan makes you notable". CommanderLinx (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing here that isn't easily handled in a list somewhere. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. My bad - Copy/paste fail hence the no results, Speedy Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 20:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Bell[edit]

Lucy Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actress, Can't find any evidence of any notability, Fails GNG –Davey2010Talk 15:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep She's a well-known Australian actor who has played lots of lead and major featured roles in significant TV shows, easily passing WP:NACTOR. Lead role in TV series Murder Call which ran for three years on Australia's largest commercial TV network. Nominated for a Logie Award in 2000 for Most Popular Actress for role in TV series Grass Roots. Just look at the IMDB page. This article in The Australian gives further background. Boneymau (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Embry[edit]

Elizabeth Embry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable political candidate. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As a political candidate with no successful elections and with no other activity that garnered significant media attention in independent sources, both WP:NPOL and WP:BIO are not met. TimBuck2 (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having been an unsuccessful candidate in a party primary is not grounds for an article in and of itself — but nothing else here shows credible grounds to deem her notable enough for an article for any other reason either. "Chair of the Criminal Division of the Maryland Attorney General" might get her in the door if she could be shown to have received a WP:GNG-passing volume of media coverage in that role, but it's not an automatic inclusion freebie just because you can nominally source the fact to the attorney general's office's own self-published staff list — and having been an unsuccessful candidate for mayor isn't notability grounds either. But that's literally all the article says about her at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsuccessful candidate does not meet notability of WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She’s from my state and even I haven’t heard of her. No reliable sources, no evidence of notability, no WP:NPOL. Barely even 4 sentences.Trillfendi (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if she was unsuccessful for one election that isn't grounds for deletion. She holds an office position and is a prominent figure in Baltimore's governmental community. It's laughable saying "since I don't know her this article needs to be deleted". This article should be kept for future expansion.Scott218 (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody can be expected to have been heard of by everybody on earth — there are even people on earth who've never heard of Donald Trump, as unlikely as that may seem. That's precisely why the depth and volume and range of reliable source coverage present in the article is what tells us whether someone is or isn't prominent or notable enough to have an encyclopedia article — the test isn't measured by just stating that someone is prominent, it's measured by how much media coverage she does or doesn't have. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Krishanti O'Mara Vignarajah[edit]

Krishanti O'Mara Vignarajah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable political candidate. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is clearly notable and the article very clearly makes that known. Frankly, this deletion nomination smells of bad-faith political chicanery. --Jorm (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jorm: You seem to think that she did something to give her automatic notability. How does getting 4th place in a primary or her government advisor roles make her notable? Most non-winning candidates get deleted and her particular government positions don't have an article unlike Senior Advisor to the President of the United States which would help make the case of her being notable because of that. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being an unsuccessful candidate in a political party primary is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself — a person has to win the election, not just run in it, to clinch notability as a politician, and the fact that some campaign coverage existed during the primary itself (a fact which, by definition, has to be true of every candidate in the primary) is not enough in and of itself to get her over WP:GNG in lieu of failing WP:NPOL. And while her prior role might make her notable enough if she could be shown to have received media coverage in that context while she was holding that role, it does not make her notable enough for an article just because you can technically source the fact to passing mentions of it as career background in the campaign coverage (because, again, every candidate's campaign coverage will always mention their career background, so the latter approach would render every candidate able to claim notability for their prior career that exempted them from having to win the election first.)
    To properly demonstrate that a non-winning candidate has preexisting notability under a different inclusion criterion, the test is to take all of the campaign coverage out of the mix, and see if what's left would have been enough to get her in the door on those other grounds even if the campaign coverage didn't exist at all. But if I do that, all that's left is a Buzzfeed listicle and a local human interest piece in her husband's hometown media about their wedding — which is not what it would have taken to get her over GNG independently of the candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Maryland gubernatorial election, 2018. Bearcat says it best, unsuccessful candidates for political office do not meet WP:NPOL and campaign coverage is not going to meet GNG because it's a one event kind of thing. The creation of articles for political candidates in general is better proof of so-called "political chicanery". Bkissin (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then redirect - failed political candidate, no true outside coverage of her from her campaign to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 06:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lost in the primary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barnes Davison Thomas[edit]

Barnes Davison Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unconvinced that this subject meets notability guidelines. Most of the references provided either do not include the stated information, are citation spam for the subject's companies, or only mention the subject in passing. The Cornwall Live article, which is focused on the subject, is an interview and therefore not independent. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No significant coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A non-notable individual that fails WP:NBIO, created by a single purpose account with a likely conflicy of interest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:48, 7 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 18:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rippling (company)[edit]

Rippling (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Classic startup. Refs are churnalism. Fails WP:SIGCOV scope_creep (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's not notable, it's done nothing notable. Funding isn't notable. Cabayi (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A startup company that fails WP:NCORP, created by a single purpose account with a likely conflicy of interest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:40, 7 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 Sangai. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Return of Sangai[edit]

The Return of Sangai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article may not meet WP:GNG and has little content aside from 'it exists and is made by this organization'. Kb03 (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. The documentary is already mentioned in Sangai which is sufficient.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sangai. The docu exists, is topical and rates its mention in the species article, but there just is no independent coverage suffcient for a standalone article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 22:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Singular: Act I[edit]

Singular: Act I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been redirected and moved so many times with only youtube and iTunes references, that it is time for this to be discussed in a more public forum. Jax 0677 (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This user is refusing to give upcoming albums a WP:CHANCE. If the release date and track listing are confirmed, and the release date is less than a week away, then of course the article is going to be scant. This is something that @Jax 0677: can't seem to get through their head. There's no reason to delete/redirect it only to rebuild it once the album is released. That said, I did find a couple more sources and added them to the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As I mentioned before, the article kept getting moved and redirected over and over again. I therefore decided to have the discussion about whether to keep or delete the article once and for all. Redirecting with history is also a potential result of AFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And as I said, as of 12:01am Friday morning, this becomes an example of WP:BURO as a confirmed album out for purchase that we're inexplicably trying to delete up to Monday morning. Unless it's delayed (and it won't be), this nom is a complete waste of resources. Once it gets to within seven days before, common sense should tell you that talk page discussion, rather than an out-of-date AfD, is the proper venue. Nate • (chatter) 20:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy the contents back to Draft Jax 0677 Why was this recreated despite having a draft in existence? It should have been continued to be developed there until it reaches notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC) updated 17:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This should have been tagged with {{R with possibilities}} so that the entire article isn't re-created. Also note this version was created on 24 October 2018, a day after the previous article was moved to Draft. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Histmerge was done so striking the draft suggestion. Article has good chance of staying given that reviews should be available [14] as well as announcements from notable magazines / websites [15] [16] [17] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - @AngusWOOF:, I initially started an article in article space, but once I was told to work in draft space, that is what I did for the most part. If I worked on the page in article space, it was tidying it up after someone made a page in article space. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Speedy delete per WP:A10. The sequence is as follows:
  1. 00:37, 23 October 2018‎ LOVI33 (+2,140) created Draft:Singular: Act 1 as an AfC submission
  2. 01:16, 23 October 2018‎ Shakiraeldorado (+646)‎ created Singular: Act 1 as an article at the correct title, it was eventually redirected due to the draft's existence
  3. 20:54, 24 October 2018‎ Jax 0677 (+43) created the redirect Singular: Act I, on which another editor started an article that should've been redirected just like the above
  • The draft already existed as a page for this particular topic so the other two pages should be speedy deleted per WP:A10 - "recently created article that duplicates an existing topic". If we're going to keep the article, Draft:Singular: Act 1 should be approved and moved into the mainspace as this page is the original article version for this particular album. Flooded with them hundreds 16:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - We can also do a {{histmerge}} as well. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info: I have history-merged Draft:Singular: Act 1 to Singular: Act I. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I think this is notable enough to keep, the history has been merged so I see no reason to delete it. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:04, 12 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 18:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaz Martin[edit]

Jaz Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON bio of a working actor. Nothing to suggest he meets the requirements of WP:NACTOR. Referenced only to 'actonthis' (an internet community) and YouTube. WP:BEFORE searches find nothing suggesting notability. Neiltonks (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These [18][19] seems to be as good as it gets, and that's not good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've searched for more and better sources and not come up with anything that's any better than the sources mentioned by Gråbergs gråa sång. He doesn't (yet) meet WP:ACTOR or WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 08:30, 7 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 18:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kishorchak Banamali High School[edit]

Kishorchak Banamali High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, it probably doesn't even have affiliation to any school board. Also, from what I decipher, the school does not have Class 11 & Class 12.  — fr + 11:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--FR, the first entry at Pg.95 of this document indicates that it's affiliated to WBBSE. And, your nomination rationale is thus voided in entirety.∯WBGconverse 16:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would explicitly call for a delete due to a complete failure to meet GNG, (in the loosest of interpretations) but I fully expect that the School Brigade will appear to claim that they are more certain than native speakers of available sourcing (which is just not accessible.....) and hence keep this, as happens to all schools........∯WBGconverse 16:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.160.216.52 (talk) [reply]
  • I still believe that the subject of the article in question is non-notable mainly due to the chronic unavailability of reliable third party sourcing. Additionally, I have struck the misleading portion of my rationale.  — fr + 14:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:GNG. We simply don't have enough source material for an article about this subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear failure of WP:GNG Spiderone 12:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough reliable sources to show notability. It is not clear if this is truly equivalent of a high school, or more of a middle school. I think we need to take a reasonable global view and realize that not every secondary school in the whole world is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Dhubulia. To the extent it is sourceable, of course. Sandstein 07:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shayama Prasad Shikshayatan High School[edit]

Shayama Prasad Shikshayatan High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of notability, not even affiliated to any central board. Additionally, it contains a laughably promotional tone. Redirect to Dhubulia if this article is not deleted outright  — fr + 11:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The school is listed with Govt of West Bengal Department of School Education as "DHUBULIA SHYAMA PRASAD SHIKSHAYATAN" (for example, a student is number 205 on this list) and on Google maps as Shyamaprasad Sikshayatan. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- First of all, "no claim of notability" is not a reason for deletion. It's just not. The putatively laughable promotional tone is also not a reason for deletion. We don't delete articles because of their tone, we edit them. Therefore if nomination is in good faith, please provide genuine policy-based reasons for deletion. Secondly, this is a high school. It exists. Therefore keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--FR, D1-038 over this page indicates that it's affiliated to WBBSE. And, your nomination rationale is thus voided in entirety.∯WBGconverse 16:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would explicitly call for a delete due to a complete failure to meet GNG, (in the loosest of interpretations) but I fully expect that the School Brigade will appear to claim that they are more certain than native speakers of available sourcing (which is just not accessible.....) and hence keep this, as happens to all schools........∯WBGconverse 16:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A more efficient way to deal with these stubs that lack sufficient readily-available sources for further expansion is to merge whatever small details are available to the school district or, in this case, the village or town, and replace the school article with an appropriate redirect. This response doesn't require an AfD, and can easily be reversed and further discussed at the talk page if there is an objection. If an editor later finds more sources and more information, the school article can be split off. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still believe that the subject of the article in question is non-notable mainly due to the chronic unavailability of reliable third party sourcing. Additionally, I have struck the misleading portion of my rationale.  — fr + 14:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have sourced the article with that one affiliation source, removed the promo stuff and added a maintenance template to it. Regards  — fr + 17:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 18:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omotunde Adebowale David[edit]

Omotunde Adebowale David (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the WP:BLP and WP:GNG or just a non notable Radio personality for the sake of it. Sheldybett (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seem to pass GNG and BASIC, please search under her professional name, which is Lolo 1 for coverage. Regards.HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A simple WP:BEFORE returns a decent amount of coverage from mostly Nigerian media outlets [20][21][22][23][24]. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per previous, and a quick google shows plenty of other coverage too. The article is clearly out of date, as it does not mention her role in Jenifa's Diary - and it does not give her professional name, either, which seems rather important! RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. TheSandDoctor Talk 08:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canlubang[edit]

Canlubang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NGEO and WP:GNG. hueman1 (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, Edd n Eddy (season 4)[edit]

Ed, Edd n Eddy (season 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Episode descriptions could easily be integrated into the main episode list article. Lead paragraph just repeats info found on the main series' article and the main episode list. There isn't enough substance here to warrant this season getting its own article. Everything about it could be placed on other relevant pages. Paper Luigi T • C 09:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, Edd n Eddy (season 5)[edit]

Ed, Edd n Eddy (season 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references. Episode descriptions could easily be integrated into the main episode list article. Lead paragraph is the only paragraph, and it just repeats info found on the main series' article and the main episode list. Paper Luigi T • C 09:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. On the whole, the arguments for keep are weak: the first presents no policy arguments and the second simply references SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which, as noted by the subsequent discussion, is not a reason in and of itself to keep, in the absence of sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alipore Girls' & Boys' High School[edit]

Alipore Girls' & Boys' High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely non-notable, to the point that I couldn't even locate this school's affilaition number in either WBBSE or WBCHSE.  — fr + 07:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused, probably delete, I have seen comments from experienced editors / reviewers that all high schools are considered notable, however that doesn't seem to be the case under WP:NHSCHOOL. So it's probably a delete. But, it is on the WBBSE list, or at least the boys' school is - C1-003 ALIPUR TAKSHAL VIDYAPITH INDIA GOVT MINT COLONY PO NEW ALIPORE PS TARATALA KOLKATA-53 PHONE: 24014559. And that list says it's current "Up to June, 2005", so there could well have been changes since then. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How does Alipur Takshal Vidyapith correspond to Alipore Girl's & Boy's High School?  — fr + 11:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaGreen (Fixed ping) — fr + 11:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jacknstock, I would like to correct you...The primary medium of communication of the locality is Bengali (which should be obvious given that the school is situated in Kolkata, West Bengal, India). Additionally, I am not able to find any mention of Alipore Girl's & Boy's High School in the link being provided by you. Regards  — fr + 11:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC) — fr + 11:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the WBBSE list, the school is listed with index C1-413. In Sanmarg's Certificate Holder list, student 55 is Devraj Pathak of Alipore Girls & Boys High School, which is listed as tested by WBBSE. Sanmarg is published in Hindi. Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepAn educational place must be there.JPL549 (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--FR, C-414 over this page indicates that it's affiliated to WBBSE.This confirms the same as to WBHSE.And, your nomination rationale is thus voided in entirety.∯WBGconverse 16:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would explicitly call for a delete due to a complete failure to meet GNG, (in the loosest of interpretations) but I fully expect that the School Brigade will appear to claim that they are more certain than native speakers of available sourcing (which is just not accessible.....) and hence keep this, as happens to all schools........∯WBGconverse 16:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still believe that the subject of the article in question is non-notable mainly due to the chronic unavailability of reliable third party sourcing. The Sanmarg source shows nothing except the fact that a student of that particular school won some non-notable award. Additionally, I have struck the misleading portion of my rationale.  — fr + 14:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a high school. It exists. Therefore keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As stated at SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning". It isn't a reason to keep itself. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that saying that something ought to happen because it always happens is circular reasoning? Like the sun ought to rise tomorrow because it always rises is a fallacious argument? It seems like a perfectly sound argument to me. Please elaborate on your position. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what I am saying- though it isn't just me saying it, but the consensus established for WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The sun is going to rise tomorrow because the Earth is moving around it, not because it rose yesterday. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus at SCHOOLOUTCOMES is that the prediction creates circular reasoning, but you're claiming something more, which is that the fact that an outcome is predicted isn't a reason in favor of the outcome. There's no consensus for that on WP and even if there were, which there is not, it would still be a fallacy. The argument that something usually happens therefore it should happen is a perfectly sound argument. And I'm sorry you don't know what the word "to rise" means in the context of the sun, but you could take a look at the definition if you're still confused about the sun rising. The fact that the meaning of this common word eludes you makes me trust your reasoning even less. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help, but I am very much aware of the physics of the Earth moving around the sun and have been since middle school. And while I take no pleasure in not having your trust, I'm comfortable with my position. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I never doubted your understanding of the physics. It's the verb "to rise" in the context of the sun that you don't get. Cheers! 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, Wikiplus handles edit-conflict weirdly (in rare cases), that caused me to overwrite you !vote and your reversion gave impressions of someone removing my !vote, in entirety.∯WBGconverse 16:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear failure of WP:GNG; the school needs to do more than just merely exist to be notable; see WP:NSCHOOL Spiderone 12:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. SPI clerk said that they were unrelated. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 13:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sana Sarfaraz[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sana Sarfaraz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BLP was deleted earlier this year. User:Liborbital requested its undeletion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Sana_Sarfaraz via Special:Contributions/122.8.46.51 (now blocked). This qualifies speedy under G5? Saqib (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Efe Martins[edit]

Efe Martins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

businessman of unspecified important and founder of a minor charity supported only by multiple press releases. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Miss Earth United States. per WP:PRESERVE 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Ann Payne[edit]

Brittany Ann Payne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Miss Earth United States is not a title that automatically grants notability. Subject has not achieved notability in any other aspect as well. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have done some cleaning up of references. Subject was Miss Earth Water 2015, i.e. second runner up to Miss Earth. I see one decent reference for notability. Will follow the discussion to see if anyone can find more. Imho article should be at Brittany Payne per common name. Article is also outdated. I added an update template. gidonb (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being a runner-up to a pageant does not give a subject notability. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not automatic. Point in mentioning was that Miss Earth Water is more than Miss Earth United States, as in the intro. I have updated the article name. Posting a link below for more sources. gidonb (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Brittany Payne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I’m pretty sure Brittany Ann Payne is her commonly used name, that’s what she’s always been known as when competing. Dismissing her as a “runner-up” I think is disingenuous, there’s a difference between being a runner-up to a state or national title and being a national titleholder and being a runner-up at a major international pageant. But that’s all academic because it comes down to whether she has received significant coverage in reliable sources, I haven’t had a chance to investigate that. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  10:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a runner up title. I deleted some unsourced speculation about some event she might attend. These pageant pages are an embarrassment. Some woman (usually) wins anone day contest based mostly on looks and she gets a page. Another woman builds a multimillion dollar business over many years, employs thousands and generally impacts the world around her and she is generally found to be unnotable. It is really stupid. WP:NOPAGE applies to these articles. Legacypac (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a runner-up title does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Earth United States, as I mentioned above I think the point needs to distinguished that she was a national titleholder and progressed to being a runner-up at a major international pageant - rather than a runner-up at a state or national pageant - but regardless I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that shows she meets the notability guidelines. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  23:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Homerton College, Cambridge. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homerton College Music Society[edit]

Homerton College Music Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently deprodded without explanation. A borderline promotional article for a college group which in any case fails WP:NORG due to a lack of independent secondary coverage. SportingFlyer talk 04:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Homerton College, Cambridge: it is the same college, and as a promotional article for a non-notable organisation within the college, I don't see why it needs its own article. Richard3120 (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Amundson[edit]

Amber Amundson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, was deprodded for reasons I don't understand. Had a couple mentions in late 2001 on Bill Moyer's show, but otherwise nothing in a before search I could find to build an article on. At best, a WP:BLP1E. SportingFlyer talk 04:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I originally PRODed the article due to significant WP:BLP1E concerns after discovering a BLP violation that had been extant in the article for over two and a half years. I also have no idea why it was deprodded, though I'm familiar with the editor who did the deprodding, so there's little surprise there. I was going to redirect the article to September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, however Amundson is not even mentioned there despite the claim in her article that she is the founder.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Williamson's Chapel United Methodist Church[edit]

Williamson's Chapel United Methodist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN WP:MILL; insufficient secondary coverage. MB 03:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails to meet WP:GNG. TimBuck2 (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- a typically NN local church. It might be merged (briefly) into the place where it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Probably notable topic, but blatant copyvio from the ETSI standards right from the page creation SpinningSpark 17:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cellular data communication protocol[edit]

Cellular data communication protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entire article consists of jargon which is either copyvio or OR. None of it is remotely encyclopedic and there is no potential for improvement. –dlthewave ☎ 02:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1989 Swiss Army order of battle[edit]

1989 Swiss Army order of battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Other 1989 Orders of battles are NATO or NATO-friendly countries. Switzerland is a neutral country for ages and such an ORBAT is unecessary and the entry lacks sources. Sammartinlai (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sammartinlai (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Source Switzerland was under threat of attack from the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact just as all the other Western European countries were. A global war was a distinct possibility, and most 1989 orbats are notable. The entry will need to sourced however over time, however - Noclador, comments? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Switzerland was a neutral country with a military strength to rival Germany. It has a war time strength of 625,000 men (more than i.e. Italy) and built around 16,000 bunkers and underground air bases. Plus the Swiss defense concept of Armee 61 with it's fortress brigades, frontier brigades, field divisions, mechanized divisions, mountain divisions, reduit brigades and territorial zones (reserve divisions), was along with the Austrian defense concept one of the most interesting of the Cold War. (in short: frontier brigades would slow down the enemy, field divisions and mountain divisions would grind down the enemy, mechanized divisions would counter attack the enemy, territorial zones (brigade-sized) for rear area security in the operational areas of the above units, and fortress brigades to block the key valleys leading into the reduit, which was defended by the reduit brigades). One day I will find the time to expand this article and source it. noclador (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link to the German article about de:Armee 61. noclador (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll trust you two to work on it.Sammartinlai (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you intending the above as a withdrawal of this nomination Sammartinlai? --TheSandDoctor Talk 08:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will let an admin decide. Sammartinlai (talk) 08:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've no particular opinion about the notability of this type of article, although it should definitively be sourced per WP:V during this AfD if it is to be kept. But Switzerland was as much set up for the Cold War as the other European countries at that time, if not more so, and as such if the other ORBATs from that era are kept this one should be too. Sandstein 10:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan State–Ohio State football rivalry[edit]

Michigan State–Ohio State football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. No rivalry exists between the two teams, and the very few sources listed only point out recent events. The page itself does nothing to describe this game as a rivalry or any history or "key moments," as are found in other college football rivalry pages. This page only consists of a one-sentence lead and a list of scores. Furthermore, routine coverage liberally uses the term "rivalry" to manufacture hype. A simple google search of "Ohio State" "Michigan State" rivalry shows very few early results about the series between these two teams. Most are either describe a recent game only, or talk about other subjects entirely and just happen to have these terms in them. Frank AnchorTalk 01:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Frank AnchorTalk 01:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Frank AnchorTalk 01:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Frank AnchorTalk 01:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Frank AnchorTalk 01:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. CBS Sports is one of the top authorities in college football. In 2016, CBS Sports rated Michigan State-Ohio State is the top, No. 1 rivalry in all of college football. See (1) here. Additional sources include: (2) The Detroit News ("MSU-OSU is now the big-stakes game in Big Ten"); and (3) Mlive.com ("Michigan State-Ohio State football rivalry blossoms with both projected atop the Big Ten"). The notability is also supported by the history of 22 marquee matchups in which both teams were ranked or a ranked team was upset. These marquee matchups include: 1951 (#1 vs #7); 1960 (#8 vs #10); 1972 (MSU upset of #5 OSU); 1974 (MSU upset of #1 OSU); 1975 (#3 vs #11); 1998 (MSU upset of #1 OSU); 2013 (#10 MSU defeated #2 OSU); 2015 (#9 MSU upset #2 OSU); and 2017 (#11 vs #13). Cbl62 (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Michigan State has enjoyed a run of good football years, resulting in some recent successes against Ohio State, including 3 wins since 2000; but the talk of this matchup amounting to a "rivalry" is thin among RSs (CBS, plus two local sources, about a matchup dating to the 1950s), and where it can be found, in large measure plays off the better known and long established rivalry between Michigan and OSU. CBS is, certainly, an authoritative voice in college sports but I'd wait to see more from them on this than a single 2016 opinion piece based on a four-year run of the two schools' matchups. Indeed, one of the sources cited in this article is not entirely convinced by the CBS proclamation: "Could that turn around this year? Certainly. But for now, it’s hard to argue with [CBS analyst] Patterson’s logic". (Separately, while the marquee matchup statistics are interesting, they're OR as far as establishing a "rivalry" here.) JohnInDC (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of marquee match-ups IMO is among the most significant factors in assessing the notability of a rivalry or non-rivalry series. And the rankings and results are readily ascertained, so I don't see how such data runs afoul of WP:OR. But what matters most is the existence of significant coverage of this series as a rivalry in multiple reliable sources. My guess we will see even more coverage in the next week as the game is due to played again next Saturday. Cbl62 (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is curious that you think there will be more coverage of this upcoming game as a rivalry, when there was no such widespread coverage in 2017, a game in which both teams were ranked in the top 15 (only could find the local story you had already brought up). Frank AnchorTalk 16:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NRIVALRY. This was only called a rivalry because the games between the two teams have been recently competitive - it is not a rivalry in any traditional sense of the word, no trophy or bragging rights are exchanged here. SportingFlyer talk 04:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this, to me, is a clear pass of WP:GNG based on the two links in the article and the research by Cbl62 above. What matters most is the coverage, and that seems to be surpassed. If we don't think of it as a "rivalry" that doesn't matter, what matters is what the coverage points to.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you also have articles which explicitly state the opposite, like [25], [26] (calling it a 'mini-rivalry'), [27] (where the Ohio State coach says they are not rivals), [28] (not RS). SportingFlyer talk 00:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Ohio State coach Urban Meyer is on record saying it is a rivalry. From today's newspaper: "Obviously a big one this week against Michigan State. Very strong rivalry that we have a lot of respect for that team and they're playing as good a defense as there is in the country." See here, here, and here. Cbl62 (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The teams have been playing regularly for more than 65 years and we have, what, 4 sources, all from within one 2 year period (only one of them national), calling the thing a "rivalry". You can do that with so many non-rivalry matchups, that to credit every mention as establishing a "rivalry" renders the term meaningless. Like, here's Ohio State-Purdue, Ohio State-Notre Dame, Iowa-Everyone. It's too soon here. (And again - those matchup stats are OR, unless we have an RS that correlates them with "rivalries".) JohnInDC (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree there are a lot of "rivalries" that are not worthy of articles, but this one is different. This isn't just a local paper calling it as "a rivalry" in a pre-game write-up; this is one of the preeminent national outlets assessing all of the rivalries in the sport and concluding that MSU-OSU is the No. 1 rivalry in the entire country. Here is the actual CBS link. Cbl62 (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But no one had talked about the series as a "rivalry" until that piece, which was an analytical look at which games had been competitive - not a report on the culture of a college football rivalry (Stanford-Oregon isn't a rivalry either), and when brought up to others - like the coach of one of the teams - they denied it... SportingFlyer talk 03:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. As noted above, Urban Meyer calls it "a very strong rivalry." Cbl62 (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The gist of that article is simply that MSU is not THE rivalry for OSU. In any event, Meyer appears to have an open mind (as we all should), as he now (i.e., this week) calls it "a very strong rivalry". Cbl62 (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Keeping an open mind" is a different standard than GNG, and as the annual matchup approaches this weekend we are seeing little or nothing in the way of RS coverage describing it as a "rivalry". A hard-fought series lately, a possible stumbling block for OSU - all of that, yes, but "another contest in this annual rivalry" - no. This may be one case where the the absence of proof amounts to proof of absence. JohnInDC (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that WP:GNG is the standard -- it requires significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. We have such coverage already from CBS Sports, the Detroit Free Press, The Detroit News, Mlive.com (a consortium of Michigan newspapers), and from the mouth of Urban Meyer himself earlier this week. The Free Press again today called it as a "strong rivalry". here. There's more significant coverage of this rivalry than 90% of the CFB rivalry articles. It seems to me that there may be other issues at play here, as many in the University of Michigan and Ohio State fan bases are emotionally resistant for some reason to recognizing this as a rivalry -- despite what CBS Sports, Urban Meyer, and other reliable sources say. Cbl62 (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states multiple, independent, reliable sources. All of the above, with the exception of CBS, are local stories affiliated with the Ohio or Michigan region (albeit not with the universities themselves in most cases). Not widespread independent coverage by any means. Meyer's opinion is probably the furthest thing possible from an independent source.Frank AnchorTalk 18:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the (local) Detroit Free Press story you mentioned today calls the game a "strong rivalry" because "[MSU head coach Mark] Dantonio is one of six coaches who have multiple wins over Urban Meyer at Ohio State since he arrived in Columbus in 2012." Using that justification, there should also be a Clemson-OSU rivalry since Clemson HC Dabo Swinney also beat Meyer twice (there are no other coaches, the six brought up by the Free Press inaccurate.) Frank AnchorTalk 18:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)'[reply]
Frank: Your contention that major metropolitan newspapers are not independent is simply wrong and unsupported by policy. To the contrary, major metropolitan daily newspapers are viewed as both reliable and independent. The argument about Clemson-OSU just makes no sense: the teams have only played handful of times, and no sources discuss it a rivalry. As for Meyer's pronouncement of a "strong rivalry", what matters is that it has been covered in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, efforts to preclude reliance on major metropolitan dailies have been repeatedly rejected. See, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Notability#Local sources, again. Cbl62 (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue with this is you're trying to prove a rivalry exists instead of passing WP:GNG. WP:RIVALRY isn't really helpful - it just says it has to pass WP:GNG. But this WP:GNG is grasping at straws with actually proving a rivalry exists. It's important to note the CBS Sports article, which the keep votes are basically predicated on, excludes "traditional rivalries" from its metrics - those are the rivalries which would satisfy WP:RIVALRY (though I wouldn't call the exclusion a complete one: Alabama-LSU wasn't excluded for some reason.). SportingFlyer talk 11:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's absolutely no way a football rivalry among two states of the same country makes for encyclopedic content. Whats next? India-Pakistan Cricket Rivalry?--NØ 12:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a real vote? India–Pakistan cricket rivalry happens to be one of the most notable sporting rivalries on this planet. Cbl62 (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I had no idea that had an article. But for what its worth I would support deleting that one as well. Its simply not worthy of an article in my opinion.--NØ 15:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that one has 36 independent third party references and is a thundering pass of the general notability guideline, right? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote. Let's ignore and move on. SportingFlyer talk 11:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Let's ignore and move on". Cool, thats what you should have done from the start. Leave my !vote alone.--NØ 05:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this rivalry is so well known in the United States that I remember seeing advertisements in Texas that joked about it, when I lived there. It certainly dominates the sporting news here in Ohio. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 08:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modos[edit]

Modos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD. This is fairly incomprehensible, and moreover appears to be WP:OR; the only refs are to someone's personal github page. I can't find anything about this in the literature – just a couple unsolicited mailing list items which don't offer any more insight than this page. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as something made up one day. XOR'easter (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't know what it is, but it seems not to have mainstream recognition. In any case, it cannot rationally be in any 2 of the categories it is presently assigned to. There is nothing which is in two of Proof theory, Type theory, and Topos theory. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_November_5&oldid=1142615322"