Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 November	9 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss PMR[edit]

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

unsourced, and there is no evidence of notability -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable pageant....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was not able to find any sources to add to the article. Fails notability. --Kbabej (talk) 21:57, 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 speedy delete. Already speedily deleted by Nick (G3: Blatant hoax) (non-admin closure) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Morganville bagworms[edit]

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

Seems to be a hoax. None of the references support the existence of these bagworms, and Google doesn't seem to know they exist, either. Fails WP:V. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious hoax. Should be speedy deleted Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 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 12:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriation (music)[edit]

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

Just a complete mess. Normal criteria would suggest there's an article in there somewhere, but wouldn't it be better just to start again? Mcewan (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cut out the unsourced essay-like rambling and you'd have nothing. If there is a topic here, then WP:TNT is the only possible choice. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until someone will find scholarly topics about this (very real) subject, as it is: delete.Trillfendi (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rambling WP:ESSAY, largely unsourced and, where sourced, largely inappropriately. Musical influence is indeed potentially a serious subject (although the term 'appropriation' is itself loaded - it is only one aspect of musical influence) but the article is self-indulgent and poorly informed. The very first sentence "Appropriation in Western music as a economic phenomenon" sets the non-encyclopedic tone, and the rest is a drone supporting that opinion.--Smerus (talk) 07:39, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Architects (American band)[edit]

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

Insufficient sources to meet notability criteria. --MASHAUNIX 19:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage to justify an article ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]).--Michig (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ^None of those are reliable sources and this article is more of a promotion of The Gadjits. Merge if you must.Trillfendi (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, they're all reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC) Let's see: Allmusic, an established reliable source, Alternative Press, a magazine established for over 30 years, Deseret News, Summit Daily, The Trentonian, The Pitch, and Tucson Weekly - newspapers are generally accepted as reliable sources. And why would this article be here to promote a band that split up 14 years ago? --Michig (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Clean Up- The sources found by Michig are solid enough to support a stub article at least. The problem though is that this article on The Architects currently says almost nothing about them and instead discusses their predecessor band. That seriously needs to be fixed, but The Architects have achieved some basic notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Michig and Doomsdayer 520... the article needs a total rewrite, but Michig has demonstrated that there are plenty of reliable sources available, and one of their albums has been briefly reviewed in Spin as well [11] – this is more than just a local Missouri band. Richard3120 (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Not sure what nom means by "insufficient sources." There are sufficient sources to establish notability. Besides the ones found in the "External Links" section of the article I found this article from the Tucson Weekly (which might be dismissed as local coverage except the band is not from Tucson, this article from Ink, and this interview on public radio. Yet another failure of WP:BEFORE. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:54, 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 delete. Vanamonde (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Northstar / U.S. Metal (band)[edit]

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

Poorly referenced and advertorially toned article about a band, whose only evident claim of notability is that one member went on to become notable for other work later on -- but even his actual notability is in question per comments below, and that wouldn't be an article-clinching notability claim anyway, as WP:NMUSIC #6 requires two independently notable members, not just one. But there's literally nothing else here that passes NMUSIC at all ("the 2nd demo is currently floating around in the internet" is actually the closest it gets to any other NMUSIC criterion) -- and there are no reliable sources supporting any of the content. Rather, the referencing here depends entirely on unreliable fansites and WordPress blogs and user-generated discussion forums and discogs.com entries and Facebook posts, with no evidence of coverage in even one reliable or notability-supporting media outlet. As always, every band is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because they existed -- they need to have a notability claim that passes NMUSIC and reliable source coverage about them in media to support it, but nothing here passes either part of that equation at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EXIST. First of all, the article's title is wrong because the band's name was simply Northstar, and something like "American metal band" should be used for disambiguation in light of another band also called Northstar. That should be fixed if the article is kept. But my vote is to delete, in total agreement with the nominator. The article uses a lot of text to say very little. It smacks of an attempt to retro-promote a band as historically important even though they barely got beyond demos when they actually existed. For more such shenanigans, see the article for their lead guy Eddie St. James. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as noted above, an impressive amount of mostly unsourced text and heavy name-dropping disguises the fact that this band never actually released a single record and that only three demo tracks apparently exist. Clearly with no actual product on the market, there are no reliable sources about them, but even the unreliable sources cited in the references make no mention of the band at all, save for two blog interviews with Mr. St. James, unsurprisingly. I couldn't even say that Eddie St. James went on to be notable for work later on in his career – his article is probably best redirected to Trance (band). Richard3120 (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above, the band barely did anything and an encyclopedia article isn't justified. --Michig (talk) 08:38, 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. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of shootings by dogs in the United States[edit]

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

This is kind of an interesting topic but seems to fail WP:LISTN cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for considering it! The topic of the article is a constant presence in the news, and similar lists are published often. Note the first link, from the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/a-dog-shoots-a-person-almost-every-year-in-america/?utm_term=.31edf0ee23f2o
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/mans-worst-enemy-6-negligent-gun-owners-who-were-shot-their-own-dogs
http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/the-shocking-truth-about-gun-violence-by-dogs/

Carbel84 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this 🙄 This is such a one off thing that it can’t even warrant an encyclopedic article. I tried to find sources and it overwhelming talks about dogs being shot. Washington Post is not enough.Trillfendi (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trillfendi, this is actually surprisingly common. I’m still adding instances but this is more common in the US than shark attacks, which has a list of its own. -Carbel84

@Carbel84: that's because shark attacks are an enduring cultural phenomenon. Books and movies have been written about them. Just because something exists doesn't mean it meets our criteria for notability. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes at the end, like this: ~~~~. Thank you. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of news reports on unusual things. Ajf773 (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Carbel84 has provided links to news article that provide lists of dog-shoots-person, satisfying WP:LISTN. Given the notability guideline has been met, there seems little more to be said. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ~~There are lots and lots of spurious lists published. That doesn't make them notable.~~ Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER on a slow day. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Clarityfiend. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Also, the title suggests that dogs are actually shooting a gun voluntarily at someone. Pichpich (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that the topic appears prima facie absurd, but this is an event which occurs very regularly. There are at least 20 more incidents in the 21st century I haven't yet added. Wikipedia has, for example, a list of fatal and non-fatal wolf attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolf_attacks), and a list of fatal and non-fatal bird attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_attack#Birds), both of which are -less common- than the phenomenon in this list. I'm not working from spurious lists like Cracked.com, as the citations in the article so far should make clear- just pointing out that there is a cultural interest in this.Carbel84 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC) And sorry, one thing I would like to stress here: The common thread in most of these incidents is a hunter who set his gun down on the ground, in a boat, or somewhere else a dog could reach it. If this list makes it plain that this is not an isolated freak occurrence, then just maybe one hunter will take pains to better secure their firearm and this list will have done a service matched by few topics on this site.Carbel84 (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is one of the worst articles in existence. It also strongly reeks of recentism. I do not believe this didnt happen at other times. Lastly not news very, very, very much applies here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Except for the WaPo article the cited references that are reliable sources report individual incidents, not a list of events or coverage of the subject in general. Alternet and Cracked.com are clearly not reliable sources. One single article is not enough to show "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure trivia Spiderone 22:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think we should add this to WP:DAFT -JonathanLa (talk) 23:11, 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 Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Burghart[edit]

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

I believe this is a hoax. Clues include:

a) Google has apparently never heard of Edith Burghart

b) the image is supposed to date back to 1848 but it is way too clean, it shows her writing on what looks like a pretty modern notebook and Commons' metadata shows that the image was taken with an iPhone X (not many of these were around in 1848)

c) despite the claim made in the article, she does not appear in List of Drunk History episodes

d) the whole story makes no sense whatsoever : mid 19th-century secretary (secretaries were actually pretty rare in pre-typewriter days) convinces two well-established journalists to found a new newspaper based on her vision.

e) The fifth reference is to her published journals. Worldcat has never heard of this book supposedly published in 2017. Pichpich (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. Ran a text search of references in google books and on the NYPL website; none of them talk about her. Ref #5 doesn't exist. Ref #1 seems not to exist. Images are clearly fake. The woman in the second "Drunk History" one is the same as the one in the infobox; the one in the infobox is tagged both as the uploader's own work and as having been taken in 1848. Also Wyatt Feldman, the supposed author of the last ref doesn't exist either--ran a LinkedIn search too to see if he was former faculty but nope. And the photo on his Medium profile is stolen off the website of a dude named Klaus. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Nayyar[edit]

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

An actor who hasnt won any awards; did not have significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. And failing rest of the notability guidelines for actors.

The actor also does not pass general notability criteria, as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Whatever coverage there is, is from non reliable sources. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NACTOR Spiderone 20:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find evidence that this individual meets either WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Vanamonde (talk) 19:01, 16 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. Vanamonde (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Fischer[edit]

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

No independent sources to show notability. oes not meet WP:NAUTHOR. Her web site, linkedin and twitter are not enough. Nothing found in a before search and it looks like the books that are claimed to have been published never were. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as W:PROMO for non-notable writer. Nom pegs this one. The claim to notability is that this writer's life story was plagiarized by the script writer of What to Expect When You're Expecting (film) and the tthis claim was a thing, but no sources are provided and I can't google any up. Some self-published books. hard to search such an ordinary name, but the unique keyword provided by claims in the article turn up nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NWRITER. Three self-published books (~~Nor does 23 by a former Newsweek blogger and well known pest around WP even if 3 of those 23 titles acheived best seller status at Amazon.~~) doesn't establish notabilty....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not one of these sources used in the article are independent of the subject. Fails WP:NWRITER. --Kbabej (talk) 22:04, 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. If someone actually wishes to hang on to this in draft space, I would be happy to provide a copy. Vanamonde (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Naydin[edit]

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

The subject of the article only participated in youth competitions and thus fails WP:NSPORT. I do not see any significant coverage which would make him to pass WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We might draftify in case he competes in the next Olympics or becomes notable earlier according to WP:NSPORT.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable gymnast.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs more professional experience, however, moving it to a draft article would be sensible as his current achievements would suggest he will likely appear in the next Olympics.User:vanmodhe (talk) 14:51, 15 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need Your Love (Flamingos song)[edit]

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

I think that this page is actually advertising for a current non-notable recording artist. Full of superlatives, uncited big claims etc etc. I don't think that the song itself warrants an article as there seems to be nothing else notable about it. Layne Stalin (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, puffing up claims for a non notable band. Would be an A9 if not for the Flamingos version. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this was a DAB page until 2014, when an IP redirected it to the current article with the edit summary "I lived it"... sounds as though Fandangos singer Lonnie Cook may be behind this, seeing as all the claims appear to be first-hand experiences. Richard3120 (talk) 16:04, 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 delete. Vanamonde (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St Anne's Episcopal Church (De Pere, Wisconsin)[edit]

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

Only source noted at the bottom of the page is one published by the overseeing religious authority. Nothing about the church's history is notable, many local churches move locations and have a rotation of non-notable clergy serving. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I see nothing more notable than a 160-year continuity, but I doubt that is notable in Wisconsin. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peterkingiron. A congregation of 150 to 160 years in Wisconsin is common. I see no indication why this article meets WP:GNG. It needs independent reliable sources. Royal broil 13:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete considering that the whole Episcopal Diocese of Fond du Lac has only about 5,000 members (as of 2 years ago, probably less now), it is impossible to see how one of its constituent congregations, formed in the 1930s, is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Townley[edit]

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

article that fails WP:NARTIST and GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ there is quite a bit of coverage in poor sources like the Daily Mail and other tabloid-type publications. There are many mentions related to his wife, and to his promotion of Bitcoin. As a whole, the coverage is very low-quality and promotional. About the best I could find was this Evening Standard 'article' which might actually be a paid promotional piece-- see the sponsor tag. Fails GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep. there is a lot of coverage, some of which is minimally OK:

Telegraph: Lincoln Townley: 'I was rejected 93 times, but now I've created my own art world'
The Express: The ex-addict who's been called the next Andy Warhol
Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Lincoln Townley: 'The next Andy Warhol' holds first Australian exhibition
Manchester Evening News: Lincoln Townley displays dramatic art showcasing drink turmoil before sobriety with wife Denise Welch.

That seems like plenty enough coverage for GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Townley exhiting at the Freud Museum, National Gallery, Somerset House, Royal Academy of Arts, Saatchi Gallery, and Brisbane Powerhouse amongst others (according to his website so will need reliable sources) also contributes to him meeting WP:ARTIST. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a clear pass of the GNG. What was nom thinking? Besides the sources listed by ThatMontrealIP there are plenty of others. Here's one from the Huff Post as well. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actualyl had to scrape quite deep to find those sources. I would AGF of the nominator on this one, as there is an enormous amount of bad sourcing out there that talks about Townley in a cursory way either as the husband of someone famous or as a millionaire playboy. We're all volunteers here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - From the sources mentioned above and from the content and sources in the article, one of which is an interview in The Daily Telegraph, he seems to meet WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:46, 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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Townley[edit]

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

No real indication of notability on page of a publicist. He seems to be best known as husband of his more famous wife, but notability isn't inherited. Sources on page are trivial, or not independent of the subject, except for one article in the Manchester Evening News, a local paper. I don't think that's enough to establish notability. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination mistaken nomination.

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of radio stations in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

Not a single in-line reference, many clearly not notable (hospital and racecourse stations?), unsourced junk list basically. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably accurate when created, now unmaintainable. Note: the radio section of Template:Media in the United Kingdom links to several sections of this article. --Wire723 (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is accurately maintained and is up-to-date.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but limit to broadcast stations. Not hard to source any of those I would have thought, and they will all be notable. --Michig (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is a very useful resource regarding the radio scene in the UK. It's not an unsourced junk list, not least because the vast majority of the UK's stations have their own Wikipedia article. Rillington (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list on a notable topic. Sourcing and notability issues for each entry can be addressed via the article's talkpage, as AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lists of notable things have value on Wikipedia as a navigation aid, especially in situations like radio stations, where the category tree is divided up among multiple subcategories (by format, by owner, by city, by the England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland distinction, etc.) rather than serving as a one-stop shopping list. If the problem is that it's unreferenced, references can easily be added. If the problem is that it's outdated, it can easily be brought up to date. If the problem is that it contains non-notable entries, then non-notable entries can easily be removed. AFD is not cleanup: there are certainly special cases where an article has such egregiously irreparable problems that blowing it up and starting over from scratch is preferable to just trying to fix the problems, but the problems here aren't even close to needing dynamite. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This ain't getting deleted and it certainly isn't 'junk' by any stretch of the imagination. Many of the stations have their own articles, we can clean up the list rather easily and asking us to TNT an article because you have some weird issue with special stations (and I've loathed the UK hospital station articles being deleted solely for not being commercial/wide enough) is unacceptable. Nate • (chatter) 02:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Loliamawesome (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This would seem to be a useful list and the sort of article that people would expect to find on Wikipedia. as noted above if some of the entries on the list are not notable then that is an argument for editing this list to remove them, not for deleting the whole thing. Dunarc (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid list. Inline referencing isn't a necessity with navigational lists so long as each blue linked entry has evidence of it fitting the list criteria. Ajf773 (talk) 19:21, 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 speedy keep. As per WP:WITHDRAW (non-admin closure) Dom from Paris (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Kim[edit]

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

fails the very leniant WP:NCURL criteria and WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's "main person and father-founder of Kazakhstani curling", member of Kazakhstan Olympic commitee. His player (and coach) record exists in database of World Curling Federation, because he played/coached many times on international championships level. -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw This nomination was a mistake, I had several widows open at the same time. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:05, 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. Also WP:G5 candidate. See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ivan Disouza. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Y.D.G. Films[edit]

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

A company which doesn't have significant coverage at all. There are a few sources, but borderline reliable, that mention the company passingly. But notability is not inherited. In short, the company fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and WP:GNG.

This article has a history of socking. Just like the other articles related to the founder of this company. Other articles were based on blatant lies, like a movie winning an award which wasnt even started yet, another movie claiming to be screened at Toronto film festival when it wasn't. Detailed information, and proofs to the claims can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratisaad - The Response.

In any case, this article fails the notability guidelines. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note this article can also be speedily deleted as there are no "substantial" edits other than the socks of master. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; I would support speedy delete also Spiderone 10:53, 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. Vanamonde (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Montgomery Lessig[edit]

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

Fails WP:MILPERSON, not other claim of notability. MB 14:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the guidelines for notability of members of the military.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Colonel - doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER. In my BEFOREing I mainly see some coverage from Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States, a congressional testimony in his capacity there, and a bit of local press (over many years) from Pottstown, Pennsylvania publications. Icewhiz (talk) 12:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus about whether this topic is redundant to Entomophagy. Editors can still try to find consensus about how to cover these topics on the talk page(s). Sandstein 10:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insects as food[edit]

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

Procedural nomination of a declined CSD A10 (duplicate article). I'm not myself quite seeing the distinction between the two topics (entomophagy is the other one), but its creator is strongly defending it, so it probably needs a wider discussion here. SpinningSpark 22:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reading the contested deletion and both articles, I tend to agree with the page creator. They really are two separate topics, albeit related, in the same way that Vegetarian cuisine is distinct from Vegetarianism. The article is well-sourced and the subject meets WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! One is about edible insects as food items. The other about the process of eating these edible insects in a cultural framework (ethical issues, taboo in Western cultures etc.). To write about both topics in one article would be like writing about the nutritional value of soy beans in the article veganism. --AlienFood (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, there is in fact a large and detailed Vegan diet § Nutrients subsection in veganism, including a full paragraph and then some on the nutritional aspects of soy protein, as well as a Veganism#Soy subsection. Wikipedia articles often have this kind of wide-ranging mix of perspectives from different fields on important concepts. FourViolas (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FORK, redirecting to Entomophagy, which means the eating of insects, i.e. the use of insects as human food. There is no wedge to be driven between these terms, used indifferently to describe the practice; it is not true that either of the two more particularly means 'cuisine' or '-ism', as both terms cover both those things. Since 1954 they have converged in popularity, reaching roughly equal frequency. --Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As it is, simply redirect it to entomophagy and create a new section. Insects as food and eating insects aren’t grammatically the same thing.Trillfendi (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and redirect Edible insects to this page). This is not a duplicate article:
- Entomophagy describes the process of eating insects by humans (and animals), this is connected to certain cultural aspects, such as a certain country-specific cuisine, acceptance, taboo etc.
- Edible insects (insects as food) in difference to that are certain insect species that can be used for human consumption, or processed into insect-based food products (insect burgers, insect bread, insect pasta). Example: A mealworm is an edible insect, a house cricket is an edible insect. They are food such as soy, minced meat, etc., have certain nutritional profiles, ways of production, legal framework (e.g.: cricket, mealworm and locust are authorized as food in Switzerland).

The first is a culture-related article, the second is an article based on nutritional science, food production and food law. For the first article you would search for scientific literature in the area of cultural studies, psychology, anthropology. For the latter you would search for scientific literature in the area of nutritional and food science, food technology, agricultural technology, etc.

To develop the whole topic under an article focused on the culture and process of eating insects is just misleading. We need a second article Insects as food (with Edible insects redirecting to it), just describing the food aspects (nutritional profile, farming/production, authorization). This article should stay, both have to be developed seperated from another. AlienFood (talk) 05:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another page in this general area is insectivore. Any merger or restructuring should not involve deletion, per WP:PRESERVE. Note that the OED does not recognise entomophagy and so it is a neologism which is less likely to be understood by readers than a title in plain English like insects as food. Andrew D. (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree! Please also note that entomophagy describes the consumption of insects by animals in general (humans included). We could also discuss to merge Entomophagy and Insectivore and add a section Entomophagy in human cultures. All food-related/insect-focused information could go over to the Insects as food article. AlienFood (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Insects as food' also describes the consumption of insects by non-humans. Unless food means something only eaten by humans, which leaves me wondering what the manufacturers of 'cat food' think they are doing. Its an interesting point that "entomophagy"

is not on the OED; is it in Websters or Collins??. This makes me think that the proper article title is Insects as human food or similar and that both "entomophagy" and "Insects as food should redirect to thisTheLongTone (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the OED online, but it is in Oxford Dictionaries elsewhere, and also in Collins and Merriam-Webster, see here. It gets a lot of hits on scholar, and on gbooks so despite the strange omission from the OED it does not seem to be a rarely used neoligism (the earliest use I saw was 1988). SpinningSpark 14:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The terms dog food and cat food are definitely exceptions, as both are considered very close to humans. In all other cases you would speak of feed. By the way, Insects as feed is a big, big topic currently discussed, definitely also interesting for an encyclopedia, there are masses of literature on that AlienFood (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do that quick search on the term edible insects too. This might be the right lemma for this article after all. AlienFood (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the N-gram for those terms. SpinningSpark 17:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearer N-gram with more smoothing. SpinningSpark 17:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Seeing this, I would suggest we keep the article, but put it under the lemma Edible insects and redirect Insects as food to it. Entomophagy can stay seperately with it's focus on societal and cultural aspects (cultural tradition, cuisine, taboo/prohibition). --AlienFood (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect we shouldn't even need an AFD for a new user (AlienFood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) who is clearly creating a CFORK without consensus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classical argumentum ad hominem. Please stay factual and add to the discussion. --AlienFood (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment The creator, has put up a whole lot of work as i see, i think we should try and keep it.... It also sounds interesting, i wonder who would wanna search this, but perharps the creator would like to make this a subpage, rather than a mainspace article? B. N .D | ✉ 08:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages cannot be created in mainspace by policy and technical limitation. SpinningSpark 11:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a well-written and well-referenced article and the contents is sufficiently different from Entomophagy as to warrant a stand alone article in my opinion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stick to it: I vote for keeping the article! It has a different approach than the compared article on Entomophagy. Entomophagy is a biological term describing the process of eating insects among animals, partly it is used to describe this practice among humans. The article insects as food – and I suggest to redirect the lemma edible insects to it, or make edible insects the main lemma – fully focuses on edible insects as food items, i.e. the species that are considered for mass rearing, the production, nutritional information, as well as the regulatory framework. This information is culturally unbound, e.g., crickets are produced in Europe, the US, as well as South-East Asia (Thailand) for human consumption. Cultural aspects (acceptance, taboo, history) are (and should be) dealt with in the article entomophagy. Aspects regarding food safety should be transferred completely to the article insects as food. As the topic of edible insects has high economic and media awareness currently, I see that the article insects as food will develop fast. Economic institutes assume that the global market value for edible insects will increase from 406 million US dollars (2018) to 1.2 billion US dollars until 2023 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/882321/edible-insects-market-size-global/). I am asking you: How would you want to depict and document this development under the entomophagy article. --AlienFood (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 13:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the hard work that's gone into this, and generally prefer to defer to content creators' preference on organization, but I think a merge is necessary. The distinction between the practical realities of insect farming and consumption on the one hand, and the cultural significance of this on the other, leaves a lot of messy grey areas: governmental regulation is obviously influenced by both, for example. There are several specific sections that appear to be direct forks: e.g.
- Entomophagy#Nutritional_benefits and Insects_as_food#Nutritional_profile;
- Entomophagy#Disadvantages and Insects_as_food#Challenges_and_safety_concerns; and
- Entomophagy#Minilivestock and Insects_as_food#Farming,_production,_and_processing (here, the former is a tendentious version of the latter).

Importantly, it's not clear for any of these whether the "right" place to put them is in a "what & how" article or a "whether & why" article. Rather, it seems like the best way to give readers complete information with full background is to make a large article with clearly labeled sections that separate cultural and practical issues when possible. FourViolas (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for highlighting these three areas with some minor overlaps/duplicate elements. From my point of view, parts of these three sections should be transferred from Entomophagy to the article Insects as food where they belong. Links could be set, if necessary. --AlienFood (talk) 22:17, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CoinJoin[edit]

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

No evidence of notability - two RSes (Wired, one event in Yahoo!), two other third-party sources that aren't accepted as evidence of notability (Coindesk), the rest is entirely primary. Has apparently been this way for years now - hasn't improved in that time. WP:BEFORE shows negligible coverage outside bitcoin blogs, many of which are pay-for-play outlets. Would be a WP:TOOSOON except it's been around for years like this David Gerard (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no real reliable sources. The Yahoo Finance article is just a CCN (cryptocurrency press) article with no reliability. Wired! articles are generally reliable but this one is just a crystal ball of what they think might happen - just speculation, not news. CoinJoin, like a lot of cryptocurrency companies - was believed to have a future, but it didn't. Much of the rest of the cryptopress sources are actually negative - why it's going to fail, or why it became defunct. A never was company, just hype. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CoinJoin isn't a company - it's a method or technique for anonymizing cryptocurrency transactions. Caseeno (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the page has been on Wikipedia for three years. Coinjoin is a well established method for anonymizing transactions, not just on Bitcoin but on other cryptocurrencies too. There has been a reasonable amount of coverage to demonstrate notability. Yahoo Finance is considered reliable. It's also covered here in MIT Technology Review https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608716/bitcoin-transactions-arent-as-anonymous-as-everyone-hoped/ . I vote to keep the article so it can be improved over time. Deleting should only be used as a last resort when there is no other alternative. There are other options here. Caseeno (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caseeno (talk · contribs) - please sign your !vote
Please don't remove the deletion notice on the article
Yahoo Finance just reprinted the CCN article, they didn't write it.
So the MIT Technology Review, 14 months ago, says the technique does not work. Why does this indicate notability? We can't cover every technology flop - there are billions of them!
I'll note that you're a newbie here (1 week!), so might be excused for not knowing our rules. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The MIT piece doesn't say CoinJoin doesn't work. It just describes a limitation with respect to multiple CoinJoins from the same wallet. In any case, I don't think success or failure is what determines notability. There are plenty of online articles that discuss CoinJoin in some detail, for example this academic review is quite detailed: https://academic.oup.com/cybersecurity/article/3/2/127/4057584 Caseeno (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a bad article for years is a reason to delete, not keep - it's evidence it lacks the capacity to improve, and that just keeping it won't do anything - David Gerard (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It could be worth a mention in the Bitcoin article. Sources are insufficient for a standalone article just about this one technology. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NCORP / WP:PROMO fail. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as not notable for stand alone article, per WP:Corp. Kierzek (talk) 22:28, 15 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 Matrix & Futurebound. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Futurebound[edit]

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

Non-notable DJ. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MBIO due to the lack of significant coverage. Flooded with them hundreds 11:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Matrix & Futurebound – he has no solo notability outside of this duo. Richard3120 (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Matrix & Futurebound per Richard3120. No independent notability at present but a perfectly logical search term and there is no need to delete the edit history. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 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 merge to In the Middle of the City. No prejudice against recreating this as a stand-alone article if better sourcing can be found which firmly establishes that this meets WP:GNG and/or WP:TVSERIES. It sounds like any such sources are likely to be in Georgian. That's fine (there's no requirement for sources to be in English), but it would be useful to most of our readership if any citations included a translated quote in the citation. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10 Years Later (TV series)[edit]

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

In my WP:BEFORE search, I was unable to find any secondary sources coverage for the show, not even in the Georgian title (different subjects come up) so it fails WP:GNG. Was tagged for verification issues since 2016. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I am bad at googling in scripts I can't read, but I did notice that we did not have an interwiki link to the Georgian article. I have since added that. In what I found when looking, I did see a preponderance of links for TV show clips, so it does make me think that, if someone can read Georgian, such information may be available. As such, I lean toward leaving this as a stub and keeping. matt91486 (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note, the network it is on is a national private network as far as I can tell, which means it should pass WP:TVSERIES. matt91486 (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Matt91486: The problem here is WP:TVSERIES also says a sentence later...In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. Either there are sources to back the notability or there are not. Check WP:NRVE. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And I think it's pretty clear that without being able to search for Georgian sources effectively, it's difficult for us to say there is an 'absence' of reliable sources. Hopefully a reader who has Georgian language ability can help. The Georgian article is moderately substantial, which leads me to believe that such sources do exist. Or see literally the next policy below NRVE (WP:NEXIST). We can go round and round in policy refs though, it's pretty clear that this will fall between lots of conflicting ones. We don't even have a good list of Georgian newspapers that we could hypothetically search. List of newspapers in Georgia (country) is a pretty incomplete seeming list, and when I try to google some of the red links -- even those that are allegedly the papers of record according to a BBC list, I'm not able to clearly find websites for them. I worry about systemic bias concerns for including content that is "easier" to make. Perhaps we could post it at the Georgian (country) Wikiproject for assistance? I did not do it myself, since I don't want to violate WP:CANVASS. matt91486 (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Matt91486: WP:NEXIST says that Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, and there still are not any reliable coverage in secondary sources to be found. If not, this should be deleted, nothing more, nothing less. And...is that source you posted a foreign site for watching TV shows illegally online? Even if it was a legal one, either way that is not a source that counts towards notability. Hopefully someone else will help here, or this has no reason to stay in mainspace of Wikipedia. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's an illegal streaming website, but I can't rule it out. That wasn't my intention anyway. I think it's a media portal for the Adjara region. As for your reading of NP:EXIST, you skipped the remainder of the sentence, where it says "not their immediate presence or citation in an article". It's clear at this point we don't have their immediate presence, given that neither of us can read Georgian. At this point we just gave different views on the likelihood of those sources existing. I tend toward the TVSERIES view personally. I will post in the relevant wikiproject group in as non-canvass a way as possible in the hopes that someone may be able to offer relevant, regional expertise. matt91486 (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

net.adjara.com or adjara.net.com is a largely illegal streaming website. It is not a media portal for Adjara. Its name intentionally mimics the locally famous bookmaker Adjara Bet. Thus, it fails WP:RS.--Kober^Talk 20:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood! Thanks for the clarification. matt91486 (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a particularly great source, but it at least seems to be independent, reliable, and verifiable. [12]. But anything more substantial would require looking for someone who can read Georgian, I think. matt91486 (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with In the Middle of the City. Marginal notability on a national scale.--Kober^Talk 20:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 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. I'm assuming User:Mongodbfan is a sock. Ignoring that, we're left with unanimous (if poorly attended) consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FairCom Corporation[edit]

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

I find virtually no applicable coverage in independent sources meeting WP:N. Largoplazo (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Business insider and Engineering.com are legitimate sources base upon WP:N. It is obvious that who ever created the page is a novice, but from what I can tell, the content is accurate and is not promotional. It is just stating facts. Also, FairCom is company that has been around for more than 35 years, which demonstrates it is a significant entity. TexasTerror (talk)

Note this editor has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TexasTerror.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FairCom Corporation is one of the oldest database technology companies in existence. It may be small, but it used by major companies such as Verizon, Visa, UPS and Rockwell Automation. The page should not be deleted.BubbaBexley (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note this editor has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TexasTerror.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - conferring with the nominator, and adding that the subject company seems to fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Mentions-in-passing, as the majority of the sources are, do not confer notability per NCORP, and the one quality source (the Engineering.com article) contains some primary content and is written in a speculative tone. In short, the sources cited do not demonstrate adequate notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - People in the IT industry and enterprise-level-company management use the Gartner Magic Quadrant as the go-to-source when evaluating companies and IT products. If FairCom is in the Gartner Magic Quadrant, which it is/was, it is a relevant company. If the company is guilty of anything, it is poor marketing for nearly 40 years. Also, recent news about a new partnership with PTC and its contract with Verizon are other examples that the company is relevant in the database market. DatabaseMaster (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck sock vote, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TexasTerror.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - FairCom’s c-tree was one of the first databases to hit the market in the 80s. I find that the sources meet the necessary Wikipedia criteria. Mongodbfan (talk) 01:11, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C-treeACE[edit]

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

I find virtually no applicable coverage in independent sources meeting WP:N. Largoplazo (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Based upon WP:N, this page should not be deleted. The list of sources is sound, especially because they are strong in the software and technology sectors. Also, this company has been around for more than 35 years. TexasTerror (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

c-treeACE (aka c-tree Plus until the late 2000s) has been around for more than 30 years. It is one of the oldest database technologies on the market, and it is used by Verizon, Visa, UPS and other well-known companies. This is not a page that should be deleted. BubbaBexley (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, I have removed the sockpuppeters (now both blocked) votes/comments per sock strike. Now, to the AfD. Very borderline case which relies too much on primary sources. Most of the things in the article and in my search were primary & press release sources or failed WP:SIGCOV. The only one that may contribute to the notability is: this one http://www.drdobbs.com/database/faircom-c-treeace-aims-to-bridge-both-sq/240134948. There is another one https://sdtimes.com/faircoms-newest-c-treeace-bridges-sql-nosql-worlds/ but it seems it is a promo-ish reference at best which again focuses on the one who made it. Not enough to pass GNG itself. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I searched AfD and found secondary sources to add to article and seem to be WP:N; one was "Handbook of Research on Cloud and Fog Computing Infrastructures for Data Science"^[1] and "Privacy and Security Policies in Big Data" ^[2] AfD could use better sources like these so I'll add these. Insight890 (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Insight890 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment The sources may qualify as reliable sources, but these are just mentions in lists, not significant coverage as is called for to demonstrate notability. Largoplazo (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources Insight890 posted are both passing mentions and not WP:SIGCOV so they do not count towards notability. Also seeing how this user has only edits per this article alone, I would not be surprised if he/she is another sock lurking. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking over the sources in the article, they're all either really about FairCom, routine business/PR annoucements, or just directory-style listings in various NoSQL articles. My own searching didn't find anything better. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV (which requrires coverage to be in-depth, i.e no passing mentions), WP:NCORP.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:54, 17 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. Note to User:Aoziwe, it's not useful in a deletion discussion to assert that sources exist, but not cite any of them. Given that you didn't provide any specific sources, I was forced to discount your argument. If you think you can find sources (and are willing to commit to doing the work), let me know and I'll restore this to draft space for you to work on. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will Fowles[edit]

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

Non-notable multiple-time failed political candidate. Very surprised the article has lasted as long as it has. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but not (only) as a (as yet unsuccessful) politician. I was surprised about how much independent general referencing about the subject there is. This person has a finger in many pies (multiple different events) and gets more than just mentions for them. There is sufficient WP:NEXIST to satisfy WP:GNG, even if likely to fail any specific NSUBJECT. There is readily available material to add to the article. Aoziwe (talk) 12:25, 26 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) 16:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but open to convincing. I've thought about nominating this before, but that Age article - which is definitely in-depth - always gave me pause. But then I was surprised by how little else there was in the way of serious coverage, so I'm inclined to think this is a straightforward case after all. The MCC business provoked a bit of coverage but there's really not much else that I saw. I would like to see the sources @Aoziwe: mentioned above - I didn't find much that was useful, but perhaps I wasn't looking in the right places. Frickeg (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect from what you have written that we are looking at the same material. Yes there are not many sources which by themselves standalone as indepth material in their own right, but I felt the lesser material when accumulated was sufficient to keep the article and indeed add to it in some areas. There is certainly a lot more material than many other articles rely on. Aoziwe (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO / WP:NPOL; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 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. Vanamonde (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instarea[edit]

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

Not convinced this company passes WP:NCORP. Most of the coverage listed looks like routine business activity or non-notable awards or lists of companies (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) and the Medium piece is an interview (so not an independent source). shoy (reactions) 14:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing does not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; sourcing is in passing, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 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. Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anu Kumari Dahiya[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E. As per my research, Union Public Service Commission examinations are scheduled annually. Every year there must be a topper and 2nd ranked examinees. Not every such person are encyclopedic. Here the subject is not known for anything else that can help in demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Hitro talk 09:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BLP1E as topping the exam is one event with temporary coverage. May be notable in the future, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG currently Spiderone 20:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, topping UPSC doesn't make one notable. Perfect case of BLP1E.Accesscrawl (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.17:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:02, 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. Vanamonde (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SFC Press[edit]

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

This article on a profitmaking corporation has been devoid of references for the last 13 years. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News) fails to find any references. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 09:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if sources can be found, otherwise merge/redirect to En Garde! where there is already a brief mention. BOZ (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 10:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a substub with no refs and no improvement for 13 years! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rank. Not notable enough for refs. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to En Garde!, where it is mentioned. Hobit (talk) 03:14, 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. Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

INews (TV program)[edit]

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

Not able to find any kind of extensive coverage from reliable sources on this topic. Most of the available references that I found are about iNews, the original network of this program. Fails WP:GNG. Notability can not be inherited. Apart from all that, Wikipedia is not a TV guide, see WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Hitro talk 09:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: should be noted that all the presents linked to in the article, are not linked to any article on en.wiki. Also note, that the creator of that article has a tendency to re-create articles that have been deleted. --Gonnym (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Just based simply on my past interactions with the editor who created this article, I don't think they have any conception of WP:GNG, and continue to create articles even after other editors have dragged them to Draftspace or have told this editor that they have failed to demonstrate the subject's notability. I'd also support a ban on this editor creating articles in Mainspace until they can demonstrate they understand the notability requirements. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. --Gonnym (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, which is not surprising for the creator. I agree with IJBall's ban proposal, especially after he has just moved Draft:Fokus (Indosiar news program) back into mainspace, but this is probably something that needs to be addressed at WP:ANI. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "It exists" isn't a rationale for an article here. This doesn't have significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources (that we seem able to find), so it fails WP:GNG. It's possible such sources exist in another language, but the Indonesian Wikipedia article isn't any better sourced than this one, so this seems dubious. I have similar concerns about the related articles Fokus (TV program) (zero sources beyond its own website) and Kompas (TV program) (has one independent source, but it's someone's obituary and is not about the TV show at all, just mentions it). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:45, 15 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. Vanamonde (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UseeTV[edit]

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

Per WP:PROMO and WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage from reliable sources can be found. I tried to draftify the article but creator moved it back to mainspace without much improvement. Not suitable for mainspace in its current form. Hitro talk 08:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Basically same rationale I used at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INews (TV program). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. this editor keeps moving article from draft back to mainspace. Not sure how long this will end up being deleted before he just recreates it. --Gonnym (talk) 00:29, 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 delete. No consensus on what should be done with Upanayana, but this article is found to be unsuitable for the encyclopedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Nanak and the Sacred Thread[edit]

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

An essay outside of Wikipedia scope — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if this is not deemed notable for a standalone article, could some words about this story be added to Upanayana? Coolabahapple (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One can expand Upanayana if they feel the need for doing so. Lorstaking (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some examples of the meaning of the 3 strands of the sacred thread could be added to the "Significance of the yajñopavītam, sacred thread" section of Upanayana, but otherwise most of this topic is covered there. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:17, 15 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. Sandstein 12:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American International Health Alliance[edit]

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

Article is based almost entirely on primary sources. A search for valid secondary sources comes up empty. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Such secondary coverage as there is seems to be in the African media, and some behind paywalls. I think we should be cautious about deleting articles about organisations active in places where they dont get reported. Rathfelder (talk) 18:31, 26 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) 16:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:29, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Money (2019 film)[edit]

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

I found that the article is not well edited while creating and same source from [13] TheRedBox (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP: TOOSOON. The film has not come out yet. The film could have an article returned to Wikipedia after April 2019, when the film will have been released. Vorbee (talk) 09:08, 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. The one keep argument asserts that sources exist, but doesn't actually say what they are. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-a-Lock[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A franchise locksmith company that doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Working references are trivial; and references I find are either trivial or press releases. A variety of issues with content in all revisions (dating to 2005). power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article isn't great, but a quick google finds quite a few news articles where they get significant mention. Apparently they even have a scam named after them.XeroxKleenex (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam on a nn company. Sourcing is in passing, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. G11 / TNT applies. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and thus WP:CORP. In the article, sources are passing mentions or redirected dead links, while on my WP:BEFORE search, only this came up as the possible source https://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/news/2017/06/23/unlocking-the-key-to-success.html but even that is more focused on Catherine Walker, which besides the lack of WP:SIGCOV it also seems to be WP:SPIP. Not notable overall. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:51, 16 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. czar 16:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Mills[edit]

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

Does not seem to be a notable actor. When trying to find sources to verify the claims in the article, I came up with almost nothing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of depends on how big a deal Donald and Douglas are. It seems to be his most significant role. WP:NACTOR: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.," and WP:GNGACTOR: "An actor might have a career that spans decades and have "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", and merit inclusion through meeting WP:ENT through an allowable and reasonable presumption that sources exist somewhere. If an actor manages to maintain a low profile and so fails WP:GNG by not having wide coverage in popular press that is readily available though an internet search, that "low profile" and failing GNG does not exclude him as long as the career is itself properly verified in reliable sources." But I think I'm leaning delete, with hesitation, because our users do depend on WP when they want to know something about actors they see on film.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:12, 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 List of Cambridge Town Club and Cambridgeshire cricketers. After merge redirect. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wicks (Cambridgeshire cricketer)[edit]

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

Non-notable, unknown man. Page has 1 source, is a stub and is near-impossible to come by. SleepForever (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete LOL this goes to show you that anyone can make a Wikipedia page...Trillfendi (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect (merging whatever details may be appropriate) to a suitable list (as per Chitty (cricketer) AfD closure and subsequent merge discussion). Although he made one appearance in a first-class match we have such limited detail about him that he can't hope to come close to meeting the GNG criteria. The Scores and Biographies reference is simply to a scorecard and provides no other details about Wicks, whom we know nothing really about at all - the date of birth on the article seems to be made up as far as I can tell as it's not repeated on either CricInfo or CricketArchive. If we had any other details - for example, a list of miscellaneous matches that he played in, then I might consider the article worth keeping in a stand alone format. Given that we literally have a surname and a single match he played in I tend to think that it is extremely unlikely that we will ever be able to find suitable, in depth, secondary sources to provide other biographical details - which is the assumption that underpins the SNG in this case. In the very unlikely case that we do I would have no problem with the article being recreated.

A possible redirect target would be List of Cambridge Town Club and Cambridgeshire cricketers if there was a consensus that the same action as occurred in the Chitty case be followed. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect - the subject does meet WP:CRIN (which I wish people would read before nominating), however so little is known about this guy that merge/redirect seems the most sensible thing to do. That's not to say future details won't become avaliable. StickyWicket (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above comments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect – per User:Blue Square Thing. Harrias ^talk 20:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Redirect – Looking at responses, I now also believe it should be a redirect. SleepForever talk 09:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Blue Square Thing and WP:PRESERVE. SpinningSpark 17:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bare bones reports on people known only for a cricket match are not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 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. czar 16:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wynnewood Institute[edit]

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

Non-notable institution. Provided sources do not demonstrate notability (See: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). MargaretRDonald (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched this Institute pretty thoroughly in news archives and other searches during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Patrick Burke, founder of the Institute. As I wrote there, I found little beyond events listings for a lecture series in 2007. No notability found, fails WP:SIGCOV. Thanks to User:MargaretRDonald for her work at the other AfD and for bringing this page to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ There is no evidence that this "institute" is currently teaching; has any students or staff apart from Thomas Patrick Burke, or conducts or publishes research. MargaretRDonald (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:MargaretRDonald, I am sure you commented in good faith, nevertheless, just fyi: nominating an article is regarded as a "no" iVote. Nom is free to change an opinion, but not to vote a 2nd time. You should ~~strike~~ your 2nd ivote. It can take time to get the hang of these things. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- @E.M.Gregory: I have left the comment and struck out the delete. (You are right: Apart from this & its related article, I have not ever voted to delete an article before..) Thanks for your help on this. MargaretRDonald (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SportingFlyer talk 09:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see that references in the article that would be required to meet WP:GNG and my own search doesn't support a claim of notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Riding Rockets[edit]

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

The pages fails to meet standards for WP:NOTE, specifically WP:BOOKCRIT. The article fails to meet these criteria, as the book itself has not won any major literary awards, been the subject of academic interest, or been adapted as a major motion picture. Mike Mullane is notable as an astronaut, and the contents of his book that describe his life and those of his fellow astronauts are more relevant for their individual pages. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a trivial Google search finds reviews in The New York Times[14] Publishers Weekly[15] Kirkus Reviews[16], so the book passes WP:NBOOK#1 as "the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." Bakazaka (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick look at a newspaper database finds additional reviews in Entertainment Weekly, Albuquerque Journal, Choice, Booklist, and The Santa Fe New Mexican. Bakazaka (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the book reviews, and even cited the NY Times review on the Mike Mullane page. However, I interpreted that rule as books that generate articles about the book, not just a review (the examples that come to mind are many of the recent political books that the release of them is considered a significant event and there are associated articles written about their release vs. a review. The books that come to mind are the recent political books critical of the Trump Administration, such as Fear: Trump in the White House or A Higher Loyalty, as there were many articles written about the books, not just a review. I didn't think a review of a book would qualify, as almost any book reviewed by a major newspaper upon its release woud likely achieve notability to qualify. Please let me know if I've missed the mark on that one. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence of WP:NBOOK#1 says "This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews." You've missed the mark on that one. In your hypothetical case, you're right that one review in a major newspaper is not enough. But this book has at least eight reviews in independent reliable sources, satisfying WP:NBOOK#1. Bakazaka (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, it appears that I was 100% in the wrong on my interpretation of the notability guidelines. Thanks for keeping me honest, @Bakazaka:. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / Delete what is it with people around here thinking it is an ethical practice to link directly to a book’s or product’s Amazon page to buy? And that’s the only source given smh.Trillfendi (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

so delete the link, oh, look! its gone:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, numerous reviews of this book (thankyou Bakazaka). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG and NBOOK with significant coverage in multiple book reviews. James500 (talk) 21:54, 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 delete. czar 16:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Fowler[edit]

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

Sigh. Proposing deletion of the article because there’s really no way around it. No reliable sources (ok New Zealand Herald is... but half the article is about another model and this ties into my point about Victoria’s Secret), 2 “sources” claiming she dated Harry Styles (no she didn’t) yet nothing about her career as a model, not even a career section given. Article seems to assert that her only “notability” is that she’s someone’s daughter and someone’s fling. I tried looking for sources about her modeling career yet from what I’ve seen, it seems her only job was walking in the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show twice. While I admit that models would kill for that, she hasn’t parlayed it into an actual notable career to speak of. “Sources” only talk about her diet or exercise regime for this show.... Maybe—just maybe—there is room for improvement, but this is no WP:NMODEL Trillfendi (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails any significant coverage per WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 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.

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=UxxWDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA314&dq=%22C-treeACE%22%20-wikipedia&pg=PA314#v=onepage&q=%22C-treeACE%22%20-wikipedia&f=false
^ https://books.google.com/books?id=QT5IDgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA68&dq=%22C-treeACE%22%20-wikipedia&pg=PA68#v=onepage&q=%22C-treeACE%22%20-wikipedia&f=false

[1] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=UxxWDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA314&dq=%22C-treeACE%22%20-wikipedia&pg=PA314#v=onepage&q=%22C-treeACE%22%20-wikipedia&f=false

[2] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=QT5IDgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA68&dq=%22C-treeACE%22%20-wikipedia&pg=PA68#v=onepage&q=%22C-treeACE%22%20-wikipedia&f=false

[1]

[2]