Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 October	14 October >

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 keep. Tone 16:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Duncan[edit]

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

queried speedy delete for copyvio Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz: Messages copied in from my user talk page: (Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Deleted as "Unambiguous copyright infringement". I'm not so sure about that, on Commons we have OTRS from (IIRC) the campaign manager. This should at least be discussed before deletion. Alexis Jazz (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Utcursch had added OTRS to one of the files, maybe you can see if this really was a copyvio? (even if it was, it should be brought back so it can be fixed) Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for undeleting. Anthony Appleyard, this is supposedly an obvious copyright violation according to this blocked IP user. Violation of what? I don't see a URL or anything. I can't defend or fix anything when there's no crime. Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony Appleyard, can you also undelete Wes Duncan? Should be a redirect. I've searched some sentences from this article and the copyright violation tagging seems just bogus. Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless somebody can actually show the evidence of copyvio. Yes, this probably needs a bit of cleanup, but I'm not seeing anything that's egregiously advertorial enough to just assume it's a copyvio without actually seeing where it's purportedly copied from — and he does have a clean WP:NPOL pass as a member of a state legislature, so even if there is a real copyvio issue here we would just rewrite the copyvio and then revdel the offending text from the edit history afterward, rather than entirely throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Bearcat (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: some parts were written by his campaign manager (Vicfarland, confirmed by OTRS), while he has an obvious COI the contributions were generally fine NPOV-wise. If he had copied anything he had written previously for a campaign site (note: it doesn't look like that would even be the case), that wouldn't be a copyright violation. Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. In terms of the copyvio, I'd love to see evidence of this like everyone else here - but even if it exists the article should be able to be easily recreated. SportingFlyer talk 09:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; copyvio claims are completely unsubstantiated, no other valid arguments for deletion have been advanced, and the nominator's been blocked for block evasion. This statement applies only to the IPs; Anthony Appleyard is blameless. Copyvio always remains a reason for speedy deletion should the allegations be substantiated in the future. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per earwig - [1] - there are some similarities to Wes Duncan's campaign page. However which one came first and whether they are indeed close enough copies or violations (given authorship by Vicfarland) is a question. The individual clearly meets NPOL. The few phrases (as opposed to positions) which are possible copies should be cleaned up if this is indeed a vioaltion - that's not grounds for deletions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but substantially clean up. The page currently quotes his campaign website. I have also never seen a page for a one term state legislator devote an entire section to military history, which I suspect also came from his campaign. Avidohioan (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passed WP:NPOL and cannot find clear evidence of copyright violation).E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer and Nyttend.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the requirements of NPOL Chetsford (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bless your heart[edit]

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

The sources in the article and others I could find either don't go beyond a WP:DICDEF, or are unreliable because they are either a non-expert narrowly-focused opinion piece or a blog. wumbolo ^^^ 20:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article, so my opinion won't matter much here, but I think the article should be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, and Bless your heart for nominating this page. The well-known and old saying is used throughout the Southern United States and likely all over the nation and elsewhere. "Bless your heart" appears in many films, songs, television shows, and is a commonly accepted part of the vernacular of the South. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly meets WP:DICDEF. The "Notable examples" should've been enough for this not to be AFD'd, since it clearly shows how 'bless your heart' is part of American culture and not just some DICDEF in many other articles. Sure sourcing isn't the best for articles such as these, but it's clear that these sayings are notable.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:WORDISSUBJECT. There's enough reliable source coverage to meet the general notability guidelines for this phrase. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is as a very well known phrase that I've heard many times in person and on TV. I believe taking everything together it's a keep. JC7V-constructive zone 05:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside to Wumbolo, you won't hear this phrase nearly as much in Europe as you would in the US. JC7V-constructive zone 05:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per WORDISSUBJECT, but could use some stronger sourcing Chetsford (talk) 00:57, 20 October 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 "keep" arguments here are simply not policy-based. Consensus is that the subject is not notable, and can and should be covered within the numerous other existing articles. No prejudice against userfication for the purposes of merging the content. Swarm talk 00:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses in Italy[edit]

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

Not an 'Italian denomination'. It is a Christian denomination headquartered in the United States with a presence in Italy. JWs in Italy are not a significant proportion of the Italian population (0.4%) or of JWs worldwide (3%). Jeffro77 (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics for JWs' presence in Italy are at Jehovah's Witnesses by country. If there is other pertinent information related to government recognition/interaction, it can be added to Religion in Italy and/or Jehovah's Witnesses and governments where relevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that there are no country-specific "Jehovah's Witnesses denominations", the JWs are a Christian denomination, however. This is also supported by the fact that the listed official site is the same as the official site of the Watch Tower. I've not checked the Italian Wikipedia, but it's not impossible that "denomination" was a mistranslation for "branch" or equivalent. When there are JW splinter groups, those don't share the same site and are also termed as such. There is nothing particularly notable about the JWs in Italy for a separate article (and there is no relevant material in Religion in Italy that'd be too large and need a split). —Paleo Neonate – 12:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- There is almost enough here to keep. It is clearly not a separate denomination, but the emanation of a foreign denomination in a particular country might be enough to justify an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From a strictly religious/denominational point of view, it is not a separate denomination. But, being the emanation of a foreign denomination in a particular country makes it worth of an article, as User:Peterkingiron argued. More importantly, from a legal point of view, the "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses in Italy" is a religious body in Italy and, as such, signed an agreement with the Italian government (not yet law). Italy's Jehovah's Witnesses are not many in absolute terms, but, as far as I understand, Italy is the country with the largest proportion of Jehovah's Witnesses. --Checco (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a single sentence that could easily be merged in Jehovah's Witnesses and governments (and if they have a particular proportion, another that could be in Jehovah's Witnesses by country), hardly enough coverage to write a separate article... —Paleo Neonate – 13:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All religious bodies which signed agreements with the Italian government have an article in en.Wikipedia. If this is too short, it might be expanded, but not deleted. The subject of this article is encyclopedic, indeed, no matter the article's length. --Checco (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses is certainly a notable topic for encyclopedic coverage and is already given broad coverage, but JWs in Italy (or in country x generally) is not. The claim that JWs make up a notable proportion of Italy's population, even in comparison to JW presence in other countries, is demonstrably false. At about 0.4% of the population based on official JW figures, their presence is less than that in about 20 countries, ignoring countries with a population less than 1 million (and JW figures indicate 58 "lands" with a higher proportion of JWs than Italy). Even if only countries with more than 50 million people are considered, Mexico (0.67%) still has a higher proportion of JWs than Italy. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a determining factor, and it may be that articles about other minor denominations in a particular country where presence is even more minor are also not required.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My main argument is that the subject has a legal status per se and is worth of an article, similarly to all the other religious bodies which have signed agreements with the Italian government. I agree with Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but I also cherish consistency and completeness. For readers' sake, it is better to provide a separate article on this subject, as for the other Italian religious bodies. --Checco (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An organisation 'having a legal status' in a particular country does not automatically warrant (and certainly doesn't necessitate) an article specifically about that organisation in that country, and this also applies to the unspecified 'other Italian religious bodies'. (Or should we create McDonald's in Italy as well?) I'm fairly certain that the 'agreements with Italy' don't contain a clause 'guaranteeing them a Wikipedia article' (even if the agreement is at some point ratified). Articles such as Religion in Italy, Christianity in Italy, Jehovah's Witnesses and governments etc can capture the minutiae about minor groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that other denominations in Italy also have articles is also not a particularly good rationale since you are the creator of this article and you are also the creator of the other articles (e.g. Apostolic Church in Italy, Italian Buddhist Union, Italian Union of Seventh-day Adventist Christian Churches, Evangelical Christian Church of the Brethren, Methodist Evangelical Church in Italy).--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is the same. It's possible that IT Wikipedia doesn't have the same notability criteria EN one does, too... —Paleo Neonate – 20:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, en.W has looser notability standards and a more inclusionist approach than it.W. --Checco (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. In fact, this should go to all of the articles that Jeffro77 linked above. There is no notability (WP:N). Allowing them in Wikipedia will justify the proliferation of useless articles like this one for each country in the world. Next, cities and neighborhoods. That the Italian government attaches a legal status to all foreign religions in Italy does not fulfill the notability requirements. Rosario (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

@User:Peterkingiron: Are you for keeping the article or deleting it? Can you please explain? Many thanks. --Checco (talk) 06:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- I do not like voting to keep articles on such religious groups, but if they really have 3000 congregations and 500k members + supporters, the national emanation is probably notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(That's an unusual use of the word emanation; JWs don't emanate from Italy, and it's not a good synonym for either branch or presence.) Presence as a proportion of the population would be a better indication of notability, but notability for our purposes here is determined by discussion of the subject in reliable sources, not by the size of a subset of the group. But if we were to assess based on the numbers alone, JWs make up less than 1% of Italy's population (less than 0.5% by official JW figures). JW beliefs and activities in Italy are not remarkably different to their activities generically, which are given broad coverage in Wikipedia already. Recognition of the denomination by the Italian government, if notable, can be adequately covered at Jehovah's Witnesses and governments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a notable organisation and, as such, signed an agreement with the Italian government. I think this is article is worth for consistency with similar articles about religious groups and denominations in Italy. Putting Italy aside, I would favour an article on JWs by country. Just take a look to Category:Catholic Church by country, Category:Protestantism by country, Category:Islam by country, Category:Hinduism by country, etc. --Checco (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of the denomination has not been contested, and it is already given broad coverage on Wikipedia, and 'signing an agreement with the Italian government' is not a criterion for an article. Jehovah's Witnesses in Italy are not a significant proportion of either the population of Italy or Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide. Catholicism and Protestantism are major Christian denominations (and strictly speaking, Jehovah's Witnesses is a form of Protestantism via the Bible Student movement via Adventism via Millerism) and Islam and Hinduism are entire religions; the comparison would therefore constitute undue weight to JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jehovah's Witnesses and governments. There's really nothing in this article other than the fact that it exists and a few numerical statistics. That's not enough to base an article on. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the subject does not possess verifiable, independent notability. The most we get from sources is that the subject (a) exists, and (b) is officially recognized as a religious organization. Far from enough. Then, Merge (i.e. drop a mention or two) into the article "Jehovah's Witnesses and governments". -The Gnome (talk) 12:36, 22 October 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 08:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Ansari (actor)[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines ACTOR and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. A quick Google search reveals several namesakes. Saqib (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily passes WP:NACTOR with many prominent roles in nationally broadcast television series such as Andaaz-e-Sitam and Iss Khamoshi Ka Matlab; also has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Express Tribune. Also this nomination is in breach of WP:BEFORE as a quick google search is insufficient Atlantic306 (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No major role in Andaaz-e-Sitam. This puffery piece in the Express Tribune is not enough to establish the WP:N. --Saqib (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article passes WP:NACTOR and has reliable sources. Meet with wikipedia guidelines WP:PERSON.Lillyput455 (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Lillyput4455 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability test for an actor is not passed just because roles are listed — it's passed by the depth of reliable source coverage he did or didn't receive for having roles. But that's not what the sources here are doing: #4 and #5 are primary sources that do not assist notability, #3 tangentially verifies the existence of a show while completely failing to even mention his name at all in conjunction with it, and #1 is a Q&A interview with his sister in which he gets a glancing namecheck, not coverage about him. The only source here which is about him is #2, but that's not enough sourcing to clinch a GNG pass all by itself if the rest of the sources around it are all worthless — and even it isn't covering him in the context of his acting, but just in the context of being sexy to look at. Which he sure is, but that's not an article-clinching notability claim for an actor in and of itself (hotties can still fail NACTOR and ugly people can still pass it.) So no, none of this is good enough sourcing to get him over a notability criterion that requires good sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 13:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This actor does not establish notability, not even per WP:NACTOR some are describing. Iss Khamoshi Ka Matlab does not seem like a notable show due to lack of coverage from reliable sources, so that role is out. The Andaaz-e-Sitam role was not significant as well, so that leaves him with no notable roles hence failing WP:NACTOR. Being a Hottie of Week does not establish notability, and certainly is not a reliable secondary source. The others sources are barely covering the subject or are wrongly referring to it, as Bearcat (talk) had already said. Fails WP:GNG too. Pretty sad this could very well end in a no consenus AfD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. Sorry to say, but have gone through the article? It's about an actor, not an actress. So, I would definitely say He instead of She Knightrises10 talk 11:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did go through the article, my bad for doing a typo on my post (morning time and after I looked at the article related to his sister seems to have confused me), will fix it as soon as possible. Everything I said still stands, not notable in my eyes. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep as major roles make the actor pass WP:NACTOR. Has coverage in news sources as well. Knightrises10 talk 11:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE This user has been blocked for socking[reply]

where is news coverage? Care to cite some ? --Saqib (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note this user has been blocked for socking. --Saqib (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

going to arbcom Atlantic306 (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, an actor doesn't pass NACTOR just because the article lists roles — an actor passes NACTOR when there's substantive reliable source coverage about his having of roles, such as reviews singling his performance out for dedicated attention, articles about him as their core subject, and/or evidence of award nominations or wins. Simply being able to list a bunch of roles without adequate sourcing for them is not an NACTOR pass. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Bearcat's excellent reasoning. We need substantive coverage to establish they meet WP:NACTOR and/or WP:GNG. Waggie (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close as page has been moved back into draftspace. No prejudice against relisting for a new discussion at MFD if there's still a strong reason to consider deleting it there too, but it's now out of scope for AFD to consider any further. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Love[edit]

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

Not a notable artist. The lone inline reference describes her as a "local artist" and announces an exhibition at Butteroni’s Emporium and Fairy Forest. The presumed connection to the very notable Saatchi Gallery is in fact a portfolio website that is not related to the Saatchi Gallery at all. The subject does not meet the notability requirements of WP:NARTIST Vexations (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's no coverage of the subject in reliable sources _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of meeting any of the notability criteria for artists and I see no significant independent coverage of her in reliable sources. The "Charlotte on the Cheap" website is a one person operation by a free lance writer--not what I'd call a reliable source. Papaursa (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the page creator Robpenland (talk · contribs) has moved this back to draft space (Draft:Lori Love). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:50, 16 October 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 redirect to Miss Earth 2018. Sandstein 10:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Grysz[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E ^{[Username Needed]} 11:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Miss Earth contestants are not default notable and the coverage does not otherwise show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth 2018, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term (WP:ATD-R). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 15:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Earth South Africa#Titleholders. czar 19:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margo Fargo[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E ^{[Username Needed]} 11:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth South Africa, where the subject is mentioned as the 2018 winner; a valid search term (WP:ATD-R). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 15:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Earth South Africa as recommended above.--Richie Campbell (talk) 13:43, 15 October 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey-Anne Gyles[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E again ^{[Username Needed]} 11:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG, covering multiple events including participation in Miss Teen Great Britain in 2012,[2] crowned Miss Northampton in 2014,[3] crowned Miss Earth Fire in 2016,[4] and crowned Miss Earth England this year. She was also covered this year for advocating for the environment.[5] Lonehexagon (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth United Kingdom, where the subject is mentioned as the winner of the 2018 pageant; a valid search term (WP:ATD-R). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG. This one is above the threshold.BabbaQ (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 15:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in secondary sources, meets WP:GNG.--Richie Campbell (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BLP1E does not apply, as the subject fails BLP1E #1. wumbolo ^^^ 21:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Earth 2018. czar 19:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xamiera Kippins[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E ^{[Username Needed]} 11:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth 2018, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term (WP:ATD-R). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 15:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Miss Earth 2018, as mentioned above.--Richie Campbell (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Earth Trinidad and Tobago#Titleholders. czar 19:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Afeya Jeffrey[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. Bunch of these created all by the same user ^{[Username Needed]} 10:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not everyone who wins a beauty contest is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth Trinidad and Tobago, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term (WP:ATD-R). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 15:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Miss Earth Trinidad and Tobago, since the subject is mentioned.--Richie Campbell (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Earth Colombia#Titleholders. czar 19:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valeria Ayos[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E Again ^{[Username Needed]} 10:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth Colombia, where the subject is mentioned as the 2018 winner of the pageant; a valid search term (WP:ATD-R). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 15:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect as suggested above. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as mentioned above.--Richie Campbell (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)13:34, 15 October 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 10:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Goodwyn[edit]

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

Entirely promotional . Itried to clean it, but there would be nothing left after removing the puffery and the minor awards. Every references is either an interview where he says what ever he wishes to say, or a mere notice. Most of the article was written by an ip editor geolocated to his company. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 22:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Normally, I would vote keep based on sources such as these: [6], [7], [8]. But having just read DGG's comments here (permalink), I sense the concern is the WP:PROMO rather than sources, and I see that as a good reason to take this article off-line. I also notice in articles like these the secondary sources probably got a press release and used that as the basis for their articles, so the reporting is not entirely unbiased. At the same time, the fact that the secondary sources chose to cover him and/or the org he is with suggests notability. I'm open to reconsidering based on what others have to say about this and any other prominent secondary sources I might have missed. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Goodwyn is a notable executive in his industry as noted by the types and quantity of secondary sources covering him. Trimmed down more WP:PROMO material. Trimmed down WP:PROMO copy in introduction. Bebenitwit (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1)regardless of notability this is a promotional Cv and should be deleted on that ground-perhaps I should have used G11. The "trimmed down promotional materials" still has the article beginning: "with over 30 years of experience in building and leading high-performance organizations that disrupt existing markets and create long-cycle stakeholder and shareholder value."

2)that secondary sources "choose" to cover a person is a tribute to their PR advisors, not an indication of anything notable about themselves. As one of the declared PR people at WP told me some years ago, this is the key role of the profession. Editors need stories. They take what is at hand. The PR people make sure their client's puffery is at hand. As mentioned above, the simialrity of the accounts in the various sources is clear evidence of this.

3)Looking at the claims made in the article. The second section at most shown "may be notable some day" -- the awards are minor. or for "next generation" (an euphemism just as much as the notorious "young leaders"--it's equivalent is the junior varsity. The entire third section is membership on various philanthropic boards. One attains this status by giving them money. Being chairman of the board for a major national philanthropy is perhaps notable, being member of a board of a local foundation is not. Even for the one major institution represented, his role is third-rate.: He is not a member of the UNC board, he's a member of " UNC Chapel Hill Chancellors Philanthropic Council"--the name makes it clear that its purely a fund-raising group. A DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. WP:PRIMARY sources are generally no good. Please read through WP:RS to learn what are good sources on Wikipedia. Something like this is no good, and is little more than original research. Many of the articles content based on such sources would have to go. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 15:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional article about a non-notable individual. Please note that user Bebenitwit, an account just established for disputing this nomination, is likely a sock of the article creator, user Dancing52734, and both are likely undisclosed CoI editors. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly a piece written by UPE to promote the subject. Fails WP:PROMO based on the puffery and WP:GNG based on the almost entirely primary sources and non-notable awards. The possible socking at this AfD is also concerning. Waggie (talk) 03:39, 21 October 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 deleted per G5 by Bbb23 (non-admin closure) Flooded with them hundreds 13:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nirudyoga Natulu[edit]

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

Non-notable web series. Fails WP:GNG, WP:TVSERIES and WP:WEB due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Flooded with them hundreds 13:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I've provided the article with enough relaiable sources and third-party sources. Mind Sweepr12 (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All your references except probably the Telangana Today reference are non notable. You can look for more references from regional language sources if available. Youtube links and wordpress sites don't impart any notability per se. Jupitus Smart 17:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:TVSERIES. Only coverage is trivial. Most of the links are primary. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 15:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Praya Lundberg[edit]

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

This appears top be an attractive bit part actor who has appeared on some magazine covers. The only real claim to notability is an appointment as a UNHCR ambassador, which may indicate potentially greater notability in Thailand. Most of the refs in the original article were IMDB and a wiki and what is left is very thin and doesn't support notability. Searches have revealed very little else by I may be missing some reputable Thai references. As written and on the basis of English language sources found by searches, this fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appearing on magazine covers of Vogue, Cosmopolitan and Harpers Bazaar is a significant achievement for a model as confirmed in the references as well as appearing in numerous prime time national television series, passes WP:NACTOR, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The correct Thai search term is "ปู ไปรยา" which gives over 890K hits on Google [9]. Google news search [10] on sites recognized by Google as news sites gives over 67K hits. And here is news tagged with her name on Thai Rath, the Thailand number one newspaper: [11] Clicking on any photo will lead to full-length news article about her. It only shows recent news - clicking on the dark grey bar "ดูเพิ่ม" at the bottom will load more. I can click 17 times to go from present day news back to news from 2009, which newspaper web archive limit. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of English-language news coverage.[12][13][14][15] --Paul_012 (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Miller (Internet celebrity)[edit]

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

A lot of content based on a lot of self-produced triviality. The sourcing is rather atrocious and comes nowhere near establishing the independent notability of this "internet personality". Previous AfD seems to have coasted through on a lot of vague "but he's famous!" comments. As previously suggested, this should be redirected to Kinda Funny, which at least got a reasonable amount of secondary, non-promotional coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (edit conflict) There were a bunch of spurious keep !votes last AfD, but the rest of keeps (including mine) argue that the person passes WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Copying the same sources I pasted last time: [16][17][18][19][20] (lesser [21], not on list [22][23]). And a new one since: [24]. The article doesn't have these sources, but that's an editing problem. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:DINC. His leaving IGN has spawned a number of articles about him specifically such as Polygon Daily Dot Missourian ten eighty Venture Beat Goliath/Concourse media AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three years since last nom, and references still don't support notability. You'd think with such enthusiastic Keep voters, something would have been found since then. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you say the references don’t support notability do you mean that you don’t believe any of the sources to be reliable sources, the coverage is trivial or some other isssue with the sourced that the keep voters have presented?--76.65.40.44 (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Edgarde:, have you seen the nine reliable sources @Hellknowz: came up with? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like Hellknowz pointed out, there are several, independent reliabe sources to be found on Miller. WP:BEFORE and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP applies. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article does need updates but AfD shouldn't used for cleaning up articles. Many sources on article and above to prove independent notability. Matt14451 (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the article does need to be curated so it will be of a better quality, this person has demonstrated to meet WP:GNG requirements, as listed by other users with their sources above. While, as I previously stated, the article needs curation, not deletion. Cabbott14 (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cabbott14:, you've got a brand new account and your first (and so far only) edit is this !keep vote. This might come off as strange. You could of course have been editing for years under a different account, but it is a bit off. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume they are the IP from above given the "as I previously stated" comment. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible, especially since the IP didn't vote. It seems the "as I previously stated" comment refers to the first part of his vote which also refers to curation. Matt14451 (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a second IP I’m missing I did not make the keep vote.--76.65.40.44 (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that was I was thinking too. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans: The new account is likely due to this AFD being advertised off-site, and upon coming up to it, other readers have created an account to !vote on the AFD. -- Alex^TW 22:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the article needs to be trimmed and has a lot of excessive detail, however, it seems to pass the GNG based on extant and observed sourcing Chetsford (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kiki Ayers[edit]

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

This all looks like self promotion. Most (all?) of the sources look like regurgitated press releases - lots of personal quotes and interview type material. I couldn't find anything that appeared to be both reliable and independednt. For someone who clearly styles herself as a PR person, we need higher standards than this. Also curious that the author got up to the tally of 10 edits by trvilal edits in September and then appears with this. Smacks of paid editing to me. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kiki Ayers fails to meet WP:NOTE, in my opinion. Fred (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tomer Aviram[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON biography of a director that does not meet WP:GNG. Sources provided in this article include multiple film databases, an interview, and coverage of a TV show Aviram directed and a play he wrote. No coverage of the director in reliable sources beyond mere mentions in connection to the show The Good Cop (Israel). Google searches for Israeli publications and going through the Hebrew language wikipedia page didn't turn up anything more significant (although it did include more coverage of The Good Cop in Ha'aretz). There is no mention of awards or other recognitions won, and thus does not meet any of the subject-specific guideline criteria at WP:DIRECTOR.

I was going to Draftify per WP:NPP guidelines for articles with borderline notability, but the draftification was blocked by another article already existing at that target, which appears to have been improperly marked for speedy deletion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People here are too quick on the draw when it comes to deleting new articles. This one is OK, and can be expanded. Oppose deletion. --Geewhiz (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Keep. created a TV show, The Good Cop that has now become a U.S. TV show. Article claims that he crated a second bluelinked show Eretz Nehederet and makes claims about a 2001 film, these claims - not mentioned by Nom - would nee to be disproven, but it looks to me as though they may just need to be sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:DIRECTOR per nom. May one day meet guidelines for notability, but not today. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:DIRECTOR. Agree that the director may become more notible in the future, but currently fails notablility guidelines. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DataRobot[edit]

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

Renominating for the same reason as prior. Straight up WP:ARTSPAM with little coverage, mostly WP:MILL and press releases. Praxidicae (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC) Praxidicae (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, still routine coverage and business listings, far from reaching notability guidelines. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. still no evidence or notability. It appears to be a routine servvice company, and the sources do not meet NCORP DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As far as I can see, there has been no development of the article since the soft delete after AfD earlier this month. The many references are routine announcements, partnership listings, etc. Despite the quantity, neither these nor searches are showing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 09:20, 18 October 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. G5, only non sock edits prior to deletion request were to add uncat and then another to add cats —SpacemanSpiff 04:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Viewers Television Awards[edit]

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

No indication this four-year-old award meets WP:GNG or that it is a notable award. Award mills are everywhere, and editors (like the sockpuppet operator who created this one) often create articles about these non-notable awards so that they can puff up the articles of the various people they are paid to puff up. The award allows the general public to nominate celebrities and to vote.

Of the references in the article, four come from BizAsia, a press-release site that is also "the exclusive online partner of Asian Viewers Television Awards 2017 (AVTA)" according to this. Thus, it's not independent. But kind of moot since it's a press release site. Filmibeat calls it "prestigious" after 3 years of running, but FilmiBeat is not a site held in high regard at Wikipdia. (See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources)

I don't find significant coverage that talks about the award itself. Most of the sites I can find just briefly cover the event, logging details about winners. I don't think it yet meets our qualifications for a stand-alone article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 13 October 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 PubNub. clpo13_(talk) 22:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ChatEngine[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:ORGCRITE due to complete lack of acceptable sourcing. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to PubNub. Also, have added some more refs to make the article pass notability. Heena73 (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 03:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect as a categorized {{R to related topic}} to the company article at PubNub where subject is mentioned seems like a good solution. If subject should later meet the inclusion criteria Wikipedia:Notability (software) or the general notability guideline, I have no problem with resurrecting the article. Sam Sailor 18:54, 13 October 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 10:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthieu Bucaille[edit]

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

The article reads like a promotion. El principita (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm happy to update this article if the community has pointers on making it sound less promotional. I created the article based on the media available to me, which all seemed to be pretty positive toward the subject's career. I'm open to recommendations, and will check back here and on my talk page for feedback. Thanks! TardyMarmot (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: TardyMarmot (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

I've updated the article to remove promotional-sounding language - please review and let me know if there are other opportunities to improve the article. TardyMarmot (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments focusing on the subject's notability would help here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is notable in the finance industry, particularly French finance, as the first Frenchman in recent history to be appointed to an executive position at Lazard Ltd. He is also known for having advised on the merger of Gaz de France and Suez, which became GDF Suez and later Engie, a major French utility company. TardyMarmot (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I looked through the sources. I see a few passing mentions, an "executive profile" on Bloomberg (not journalistic coverage), some primary sourcing (press releases), and other non-useful sources. We summaries of independent and comprehensive journalistic coverage to build Wikipedia articles. Waggie (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She with a Broom, He in a Black Hat[edit]

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

Non-notable Soviet Union film, does not appear to have received notable coverage in English or Russian (WP:GNG).--RTY9099 (talk) 00:07, 6 October 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 October 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Quite a few mentions in Russian sources in GBooks. My gut instinct is that there is likely enough coverage from former soviet countries from the era of its release. A Google search isn't sufficient here. --Michig (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. Wikipedia has a fairly low bar for inclusion of films, and this article is certainly not advertising (and the film is from 1987). It's a film with notable actors, a musical with a notable composer, and tells a story including notable Russian folk characters. I'd say keep. It's often difficult to immediately find Russian information on the internet, and Michig says the film is mentioned in quite a few Russian sources in GoogleBooks. Softlavender (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources book coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chebo people[edit]

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

Unsourced and poorly written article proposing the existence of an ethnic group. Turtlewong (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Well, firstly, at the time of nomination it had 3 citations. Those should certainly be checked, but a priori this is a sourced article.
Secondly, if "poorly written" were grounds for deletion, we'd have a much smaller encyclopedia than we do.
Thirdly, the Chebo/Chabo (both spellings are mentioned in the article) do appear to exist: [Trimingham's Islam in Ethiopia says: "Cerulli writes of the Chabo of south-west Ethiopia, who speak Oromo but are of mixed Gurage and Sidama origin: 'As amongst all the other Galla groups, so also with the Chabo their Monophysite Christianity ... has superimposed itself upon the local paganism without destroying their ancestral beliefs and practices.'" This locates the Chabo geographically, linguistically, ethnically, and in terms of religion. The Atlas of Ethiopian Livelihoods states, too, that the people of the Chebo-Inchini area of Oromia live on enset, barley, and cattle. I'll tidy up the article a bit, add this source, and investigate a little further. It would help enormously if someone who has lived in Ethiopia and maybe speaks Oromo were able to help on this AfD. Meanwhile, I'd be minded to keep the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chebo is a regional identification not an ethnic group. For example, Amhara is an ethnic group but Amharas from Gondar say they Gondare, from Gojame say they are Gojame, etc. Your source above doesn't state that Chebo is an ethnic group. Rather, Chebo is a regional subgroup of Oromos who lived in (at the time of the book's publication) in Chebo Awrajja. Also, I stand by my criticism of the article being unsourced. The three references listed in the article are off topic and make no mention of Chebo as an ethnicity. This what I meant by poor writing: making claims and then citing random papers that do not support the statements. Turtlewong (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the Chebo are not an ethnic group, that is grounds for improving the article, not deletion. The claim the article is unsourced is misleading; at most, it is the claim that the Chebo are an ethnic group that is unsourced. There is no prima facie reason for us not to have an article on a regional group. There is Cockney for instance, which no one in their right mind would claim constitutes an ethnicity. Since no one has made a claim that the Chebo are not notable, they meet our criteria for inclusion. SpinningSpark 17:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article probably does need to be rewritten, but that's not grounds for deletion. funplussmart (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Qurayyah[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Pin points to random, non-notable area of rocky/hilly terrain. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inaccurate, misleading, unresearched nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of these articles. I'm surprised that these managed to be around for 10 years. funplussmart (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking verifiability. Natureium (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Murayshid[edit]

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

Pin points to holding area for disused planes at Fujairah airport. Fails WP: anything you care to name. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if this were to exist (which it apparently doesn't), if it's a 59-foot hill it doesn't meet any kind of notability. Softlavender (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the ridiculousness of all these stubs. Natureium (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Mulfirah[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Pin is to flat scrubland in Fujairah city. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inaccurate, misleading, fails verification. Softlavender (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking verifiability. Natureium (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Mubrahah[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Random pin. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inaccurate, fails verification. Softlavender (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking verifiability. Natureium (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure)—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Nettles[edit]

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

~~Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBASE. No sources independent of statistics sites. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NBASE having played 240 games over six years in Major League Baseball.—Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major League Baseball players are notable. sources are out there. Spanneraol (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, took me no time at all to find some sources (for both Jim Nettles as a matter of fact). Wizardman 15:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I created this article, otherwise I would have closed it as speedy keep myself. @Mythdon:, please familiarize yourself with WP:NBASE before invoking it. Per NBASE#2, baseball players are presumed notable if they "have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, KBO League, or have participated in a major international competition (such as the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup or Olympics) as a member of a national team." He has appeared in Major League Baseball and Nippon Professional Baseball. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw but apparently my understanding of NBASE is different from the community, withdrawing. That same guideline also mentioned statistics sites by themselves don't establish notability, so I guess the application of NBASE is a bit tricky, since it's the first time I've ever invoked it.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Obviously meets WP:NBASEBALL. Papaursa (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep clearly meets notability standards.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious pass of WP:NBASEBALL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:55, 14 October 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. Michig (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Mimduk[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Pin points to random hilly terrain inland of Fujairah. Mimduk is a wadi, BTW, not near here. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Inaccurate nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Natureium (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Khadra'[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Pin points to trees off the Ghub road. Khadra is a well-known wadi, BTW, nowhere near this. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Inaccurate nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Natureium (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Janubi[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Pin points to mountain terrain north of Masafi Friday Market. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One of a massive series of misleading shot-gun three-word articles on hills and "mountains" in the UAE by someone with zero knowledge of the area, most of which articles are clearly, upon examination, completely and utterly inaccurate. Softlavender (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Natureium (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Haqamah[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Pin points to random terrain. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inaccurate, unresearched, misleading three-word stub posted by someone with zero knowledge of the area. Softlavender (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Natureium (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Gral[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, GNG GEOLAND. Pin is random terrain. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inaccurate, misleading three-word "article" posted in shot-gun fashion by someone with zero knowledge of the area. Softlavender (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Natureium (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Ghura[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Pin is random rocky terrain. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One of a massive series of shot-gun three-word articles on hills and "mountains" in the UAE by someone with zero knowledge of the area, most of which articles are clearly, upon examination, completely inaccurate. Softlavender (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. This is not a mountain. Natureium (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Ghulayyil Khun[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, GNG GEOLAND. Pin points to random mountainous terrain inlande of Bidayah. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One of a massive series of shot-gun three-word articles on hills and "mountains" in the UAE by someone with zero knowledge of the area, most of which articles are clearly, upon examination, completely inaccurate. Softlavender (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. This one could possibly be a mountain, but probably not this specific mountain. Natureium (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Ghina[edit]

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

No it's not. Pin points to a wadi west of Bithnah. Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Inaccurate nonsense; one of a massive series of inaccurate three-word geographical stubs by someone with zero knowledge. This situation is requiring a clean-up that has reached Neelix-level proportions. Softlavender (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. This is getting ridiculous. Natureium (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Fujayrah[edit]

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

There is no Jebel Fujairah. Pin points to random hillsides inland of Sakamkam. Fails WP:V, GNG ETC. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Inaccurate three-word "article". Even if it exists as claimed (disputed and doubtful), a 564-foot hill bears no notability. Softlavender (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. If the creator weren't already blocked, I would recommend that. Natureium (talk) 19:01, 16 October 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. WP:SNOW Sandstein 20:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal ad Dayt[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, GEOLAND and GNG. Pin points to a location offshore of Sharm. Which is an interesting place to find a mountain. Although a 66ft high mountain is itself a novel idea... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Inaccurate three-word nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Thanks for at least making me laugh with the description of this one. These are all garbage. Natureium (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A satellite view shows a curved spit of land like a breakwater, with a road and maybe car or truck parking or some similar storage. Shipping containers? But no sign of a mountain or even a hill. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete searching led me to believe that this is a hoax ,so delete.JC7V-constructive zone 22:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Fariq[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Pin points to random mountainous terrain inland of Sakamkam. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inaccurate, misleading. One of a massive series of grossly inaccurate articles by the same user. Softlavender (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Natureium (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Dad[edit]

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

Points to random hillside in ranges east of Abadilah, west of Wurrayah. Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inaccurate, misleading, fails verification. Softlavender (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Natureium (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Buta[edit]

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

Points to a depression in hills around Al Hayl. Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Inaccurate, misleading three-word "article". Softlavender (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. A depression is the opposite of a mountain. Natureium (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, non-notable. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal al Utayfah[edit]

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

Points to some trees off the Ghub road. Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. And is a place in Saudi Arabia, apparently... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of a massive series of inaccurate three-word stubs rapid-fire created by someone with zero knowledge of the area using a massively inaccurate and massively outdated source. Softlavender (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Not even the right country. Natureium (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal al Kubus[edit]

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

Points to non-notable area of rocky land south of Dibba. Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Interestingly, Kubuś is a pulp juice made from Mazury region carrots and fruit. Which is more relevant than this stub. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A 460-foot hill, if it actually exists (highly unlikely given the article creator's track record in this area) utterly fails notability. Softlavender (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Natureium (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal al Huwaybit[edit]

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

Pin points to ridge in deep mountains east of Sharm. This is not a peak. Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Cruft. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inaccurate, unverified unresearched nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails V. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Natureium (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal al Habil[edit]

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

Pin points to lowland north of Bidayah. Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Cruft. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A hill 680 feet tall fails GNG and in all likelihood the information itself is completely inaccurate, considering the article creator's track record in this area. Softlavender (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per snow. At least it isn't 26 feet high. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking verifiability and notability, likely garbage. Natureium (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal al Balush[edit]

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

If it is, it's in someone's back garden and it's apparently 23ft high. Cruft. Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. And any sane test of reality. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If it even exists (highly doubtful considering the article creator's other creations in this area), it's a hill only 23 feet high. Softlavender (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this seems to be one of a series of very short articles, saying nothing more than such-and-such a place is a hill or mountain in Fujairah. We already have an article on List of mountains in Fujairah, and it appears that these short articles are just typings based on this list. Vorbee (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Vorbee, the reverse is true; that list article was compiled from these faux articles. Therefore the list article will need to be either gutted or deleted as well. Pinging Alexandermcnabb to check that list article and help decide what to do with it. Softlavender (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. The list will be a great deal smaller, but there are identified and notable mountains (not many) in contemporary Fujairah, such as Jebel Wamm and Jebel Sakamkam. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandermcnabb, after all of these Jabal AfDs close, someone will need to delete the redlinks from the List of mountains in Fujairah. If the redlinks stay there, they are likely to be re-created from spurious internet information that has been spawned from this Wikipedia misinformation. Softlavender (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender Sure, I'll take care of it. I'm trying not to look at the lists of mountains in Ras Al Khaimah, Dubai etc! :( Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Do we need to vote on all these articles, or can common sense prevail? Natureium (talk) 18:58, 16 October 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Janine Dickins[edit]

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

This was originally my first article creation back in 2008, but there has been no improvement and there is no current assertion for future improvement. Only sources that exist are movie databases (like IMDB and Moviefone). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:G7 (author requests deletion). — Newslinger talk 08:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged article for speedy deletion. — Newslinger talk 08:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal ad Dahir[edit]

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

Fails WP:V and WP:GEOLAND as well as GNG. Pin points to a random mountainside. Dahir is a wadi and it's nowhere near this location. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Grossly inaccurate and highly misleading three-word "article" posted on Wikipedia for no good reason. Softlavender (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. If there are any more, let's batch AfD. Natureium (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistani Records in Guinness Book[edit]

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

Clearly indiscriminate list. None of the sources treat this as the primary or important subject contrary to WP:SIGCOV. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of records of India and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List indian records for similar previous deletions. Lorstaking (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just approved this through AfC as it is well referenced. Was not aware of precident for deleting similar lists. Legacypac (talk) 06:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I created the draft. I was also going to nominate it for deletion because there are many records in Guinness Book. You can check it by clicking here. And there a lot of sources are needed to make it. PakEditor (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD G7 since PakEditor, the author and sole contributor of substantial content, wants it deleted. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ESW Capital[edit]

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

Not notable? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I'd prefer a more convinced nominator, most fo the sources I found on Gnews were press releases or run of the mill non-indepth mentions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Google search of "ESW Capital" turns out 10 pages of info. Most of the companies it acquired are notable and have their own wiki entries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junhua Chang (talk • contribs) 23:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:18, 16 October 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. Strong consensus that there is sufficient independent review coverage of the subject to enable satisfaction of WP:NBOOK (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Girl[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK in my opinion, as the Publishers Weekly review seems too trivial and short. wumbolo ^^^ 15:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that this fails WP:NBOOK. Auldhouse (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The book has received at least two reviews from newspapers, the Washington Times and The Guardian. I can't find the Independent source, but if that could be found that would be a nice addition as well. Booklist also reviewed the book, which should be seen as reliable given that it's from the American Library Association. It also received a review from Lituanus, so this should pass NBOOK. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BOOKCRIT per review coverage, such as [25], [26] and [27]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book covered in the article "has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself", so it passes WP:BOOKCRIT#1. Bakazaka (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Independent site's dire search facility hasn't helped verify the Alan Sillitoe's listing of it as a 2003 book of the year in "The Independent on Sunday", but even without that the Guardian and Washington Times items should suffice for WP:NBOOK criterion 1. AllyD (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by Northamerica1000.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Neither delete argument is convincing here. --Michig (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep due to coverage in reliable sources. Passes WP:BOOKCRIT. Knightrises10 talk 14:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subzero (adjective)[edit]

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

This is a dictionary definition, and an unnecessarily complicated one. "There are two definitions" is followed by "means below zero". Should just be redirected to Subzero or just deleted outright. Primefac (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator seems correct. This is a dictionary word rather than an encyclopedia entry. Rosario (talk) 02:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as superfluous to subzero and the already existing Wiktionary entry.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Multiple dictionary definitions add up to a slightly longer dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article, and Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOT#DICTIONARY). Any search for the term will find it in the existing disambiguation page, so keeping the redirect adds no value. Bakazaka (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonda number[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no coverage in secondary sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Web pages, an OEIS entry, and a MathWorld listing are not enough to add up to serious notability. No Google Scholar nor Google Books sources. This appears to be the same editor that has been spamming many Wikipedia number theory articles with masses of base-dependent original research; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2018/Aug#Duodecimal and Template talk:Classes of natural numbers#Declutter these templates, among others. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable per David Eppstein. There's nothing on Scholar as he says, and nothing on HighBeam or JSTOR either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. I guess I wouldn't be opposed in principle to having "umbrella" articles that cover a collection of MathWorld topics that aren't individually notable, but that's a discussion for another day. In practice, the content we keep seeing for these only-on-OEIS-and-MathWorld terms just isn't worth keeping around. XOR'easter (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. {{Cite book}} added, still fails GNG. Sam Sailor 06:20, 18 October 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. While there was a split opinion at the outset, the addition of transclusions seems to have resolved certain issues. There seems consensus that the ability to find these details in a single location vs the current 13 means that it is not a Redundant Fork. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of current judges of the United States courts of appeals[edit]

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

I was just alerted about the existence of this article. We currently have List of articles for all the extant United States Court of Appeals and this really seems redundant and unnecessary. While I appreciate the effort of the creator, who is a new editor, this really wasn't needed and is not really helpful. Delete as redundant. Safiel (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Safiel When you get a chance could you please link the articles you think this is duplicating? I can't seem to locate them. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
We already have numerous lists and templates for United States courts and judges. Every new thing added is something that must constantly be updated, so a point is reached when we must seriously consider what is useful and what is wasteful. Safiel (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are not technically in the list of format, but they serve the exact purpose. Safiel (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I was looking for a single article which is why I came up short. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add Template:United States courts of appeals judges to that list. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 01:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is redundant, as Safiel (talk · contribs) has already demonstrated, and is just another page that has to be kept up to date, with little resulting benefit. I appreciate the article creator's effort, but they would very helpful by contributing to existing pages in the Wikiproject. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 01:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Upon further thought, I did what SHOULD have been done in the first place. I removed the tables and transcluded from our existing tables, thus eliminating the need to regularly update this article, should it continue to exist. Since the question of whether it is actually needed has not been substantially addressed, ~~I will maintain my delete stance and let this AfD proceed.~~ However, at least I have solved the problem of extra work, this article would require no further regular updating. Safiel (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment PLEASE READ - FROM THE ORGINAL CREATOR. I created this list because I was searching in vain for a list of all the appeals court judges in one location. The list exists nowhere on the internet (after a pretty thorough search). I was interested in a list because of the recent supreme court hoopla and many nominees come from the appeals courts. It's just convenient to have them in one place. It gives you a solid overview of the system visually. It allows you to quickly compare the courts. The data on the nominating president is critical because it gives you an idea of the ideological balance of the court and the appeals court as a whole. All that said, its become of a bit of a passion project and my introduction to being an editor on wikipedia. I've spent many hours on it even though the core data comes from the existing appeals courts pages. Updating it isnt bad at all. Once a month I go to the pages and bring the data to my main list. I'll add that the page is already seeing hundreds of views daily - some people are interested. I cannot see a good reason to delete the page. I appreciate your concern and for taking the time to adress some issues and for the past work you've done on wikipedia. But I'd really like to keep this page going. At the least maybe we can assess six months from now? Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nature mr allnut (talk • contribs) 05:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia data is intentionally sorted in a variety of ways, for example alphabetically, by year, or by category. It is a shortcoming of the wiki's format that they cannot all be queried at once, but this is only because most of the time there is no use for such a massive query. If you need a query of that nature, I would recommend wikidata, though it seems matching a judge to a jurisdiction is not trivial and may be impossible with the current scheme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanpet113 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Template:United States courts of appeals judges and the "Current composition of the court" sections in the above-mentioned articles suffices. There does not need to be multiple lists that list the same thing.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep While it is a fork of existing info, I would argue it is still useful because you can get all info in one place, rather than having to find and read 13 articles. As for the template, that has be kind of on the fence, but I know people don't always scroll down to the bottom to see that template. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the nominator claims this is redundant...to 13 separate articles. That's obviously not functionally equivalent to having this information indexed in one place, and I can only see it as useful to the reader to organize those 13 separate sublists together in one list. We can see in one place how many currently serving judges for all the COA were appointed by each president, how many COAs have vacancies, etc. The delete !voters above also do not seem to question this, as they seem to have no issue with the template. Maintenance is not an argument for deletion here as the bench does not change so rapidly that it can't be kept up with. There is also no issue to having both a list and a navigational template cover the same content; see WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The issue of UPDATING HAS BEEN FIXED. Since the data connects automatically to the 13 other pages, there is no need to ever update this page. The benefits are having 13 data sets in one place to quickly and more effectively compare. The downsides are none, except putting 4 kb of data on the wiki servers. IMHO there is no rational reason to delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nature mr allnut (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A combined list seems fully appropriate to me. I like Safiel's rather clever transclusions and I'm pleased the article creator is happy with this approach. Thank you, both. Thincat (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shifting from delete to keep as nominator I would withdraw and close this, but since there are active delete votes I cannot do that. Unfortunately, I did NOT think of the tranclusion option before I nominated this. With regular maintenance no longer required, the utility of this article now well exceeds the effort required to maintain it, which frankly was my main concern at the beginning. We are five days in on this AfD, only two days to wait for it to expire. Safiel (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote from Delete to Keep I made my original delete vote before Safiel's creative solution of transcluding tables took effect. Since the majority of the premise of my delete vote was based on the need to update another page, I don't see it as fair to keep my vote on this AfD the same. While I still have some reservations about how useful this article actually is, at this point I don't see any need for it to be deleted. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 22:29, 18 October 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 13:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Durrett[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No assertion of notability independent of the subject or independent of tour dates, track listings or lyrical databases. Even the single reference that's on this page is no longer working.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete Fails the GNG, not enough indepth coverage specifically about herself.~~ ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing per below, I now see I was looking at the wrong Liz Durrett. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC via multiple examples of significant coverage in reliable sources, e.g. Allmusic ([28], [29], [30]), Pitchfork ([31], [32], [33]), NPR ([34]), PopMatters ([35]), No Depression ([36]), Riverfront Times ([37]). --Michig (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I could tell, there were no reviews in the search I performed. This nomination was based on what I'd found, but given the sources you've provided, I'll withdraw this nomination.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 09:01, 13 October 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.