Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 30 October 1 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Note that the delete arguments are more about how this is written than fundamental notability of the topic so it may be possible to try again, ie WP:TNT. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of young people's rights in France[edit]

Timeline of young people's rights in France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not convinced this list actually reflects what it says it does. Most of these are just...random things that young people did, like being granted stuff from the royal purse or travelling to sleep with their older boyfriend. Maybe the stuff about age of consent and social media use down towards the bottom could be construed as having to do with "young peoples rights", but otherwise this is more a list of trivia than coherent content.

I'd say we should merge anything relevant to like, child welfare in France or something, but we don't have an article on the topic by any title that I've found. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Although the article's author provides considerable sourcing, there does not seem to be a source that connects all these historical factoids into a narrative of youth rights in France. Therefore, the whole exercise is WP:Synthesis and must go. — JFG talk 01:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This article illustrates what young people in France were able and allowed to do over the times. It provides examples of freedom of religion, freedom of movement, right to work, right to education, child marriage, ... and their curtailment. It is construed analogously to Timeline of young people's rights in the United Kingdom and Timeline of young people's rights in the United States. The article can be improved rather than deleted. Wakari07 (talk) 10:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nominator that this list does not represent what it says it does, and I don't agree that it's analagous to either the UK or US lists, which are about rights, responsibilities, legislation, etc, relating to children in general (or a particular category of children), but not individual children, as this one largely is. Only the last 4 items are general (the point about the French Revolution, etc, does not say how the Declaration relates to children or young people). I don't think it's worth keeping just for the last 4 points. (I'm not even sure that it would constitute WP:Synthesis, because I can't see any conclusion or implication!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, really under the idea of WP:TNT. This isn't a timeline of rights but a mish-mash of accomplishments or legislation that actually curtails rights (like the minors who need parental consent to access social media). Ifnord (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn’t even written in the style of timelines on Wikipedia. It looks like a 9th grade essay.Trillfendi (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm discounting the opinion that treats very old people as inherently notable because this is contrary to our guidelines and practice. Sandstein 11:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aida Mason[edit]

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

Declined PROD. My original rationale is the basis for this AfD; "Yet another thoroughly non-notable oldster. 4 obituaries and one local news article is nowhere close to surpassing routine coverage, and simply breathing for longer than anyone else in an arbitrarily defined geographical area is not inherently notable." The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia fluff about her family, jobs held and the standard longevity advice. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on the List of British supercentenarians, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Article only includes minimal information about her quiet life. Nothing notable beside her old age; coverage in longevity tables is sufficient. — JFG talk 02:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of non-routine significant and sustained coverage of the subject, the details of her life may be quiet but so what; there are many people interested in the lives of the super elderly. Easily passes WP:GNG and the delete votes amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and are not policy based. Its more than WP:BLP1E as there is sustained coverage of her later years, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
so what; there are many people interested in the lives of the super elderly… In other words, you like it? Guess what, I like it too! That's not an argument against deletion. — JFG talk 22:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Atlantic306 there is enough coverage to meet notability of her age , and as there is a huge amount of 100+ on here which also have non eventful lives (Merle Barwis an example) a precedent has already been set.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's the whole point; the GRG and its fans used Wikipedia for years as a dumping ground for sub-stubs such as this and the one you linked, and the early discussions on them had so many (and many of them with an obvious COI) SPAs that they're effectively useless for determining consensus on this matter. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
However you have missed the point - we have on Wikipedia a wikiproject devoted to this so there are users who believe that this should be in Wikipedia - as the dictionary says encyclopedia says "a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically." Centurions is the subject, and the centurions that are on here is the aspects.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And for years they used Wikipedia as a dumping ground for their pet project and ran roughshod over our policies on notability. It's not whether a few obsessive fanboys wanting to promote their organization think something is notable, it's whether reliable, secondary sources do; in this case, the near-total absence of them shows this particular oldster is not. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included is the wording of WP:BIO which means the guidelines are not set in stone. Wikipedia is a global project that will see different people have different ideas on what should and should not be on here. The WP:GNG is not a policy - its General Notability Guidance and as such is managed on a policy of wikipedias members making decisions. If Administrators thought the other Centurions did not meet the requirements they would have been removed. It will be down to the administrator to make a judgement - this is not a vote just a talking shop to put our opinion across.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Side track on the term "oldster", not helpful to determining article fate
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment Could people please refrain from using ageist derogatory terms like yet another oldster. It is disrepectful. I have no opinion whether or not this article is kept or deleted, but this ongoing debasing terminology on several of the AfD is unencyclopedic, if not bigoted. Netherzone (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's AfD, not mainspace. And trying to find a bit of levity in this all would do everyone some good, it's how I manage to keep at it after navigating several years of this toxic environment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Levity" is irrelevant when it comes to sexism, ageism, or racism - Wikiettique still applies. Bigotry is not a "joke". It does not matter if it is situated in AfD or not. AfD is a public space. What is particularly telling regarding these recent incidents of ageism is how the terminology shifted from the more respectful "exceptional longevity" to the derogatory term "oldster". Netherzone (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I almost want to vomit on hearing this kind of blather. EEng 00:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Anecdotally, I can't ever remember someone using "oldster" as an insult and have a hard time visualizing it as such. As to bigotry, quoth Inigo Montoya; "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:The Blade of the Northern Lights - See Wikipedia's definition of Pejorative suffix - specifically the entry in the English section - "oldster". The suffix -ster attaches a negative connotation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative_suffix Netherzone (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd think a university professor would know better than to rely on Wikipedia as a source. Even Wikipedia doesn't rely on Wikipedia as a source. Try a good dictionary. EEng 00:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill with your criticism of that term and claims of prejudice, and it would have been better to talk to the applicable editor on their personal talk page, if you felt there was a problem with their word use, instead of spamming AfD's with the same complaint. This topic area has also had at least 10 years of controversy and I don't think once has it ever been over that word. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Greetings User:Newshunter12 Sorry you may have misundertood my intentions. They are to preserve civil engagement between generations, and resolve systemic bias, and I certainly not intend to spam as you curiously suggest. I thought spam had a commercial motives. None here. NO WORRIES dear, no grudges. Your fellow editor who are working together with on the persons of advanced age are serving a noble cause. All good. Thank you for the work you do in the place I misunderstood was an encyclopedia. Best to you, Netherzone (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to this particularly brazen show of dopiness at [1]. By the way, Netherzone, you need to know that ascribing bigotry and so on to other editors without knowing what fuck you're talking about is a personal attack. EEng 00:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No response. Huh. EEng 03:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, I think just that she lived 111 years should be given significant consideration.Alex-h (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no notability guideline or policy that says the oldest anything is notable or entitled to an article. Your keep argument is entirely without merit, and there have been countless thousands of supercentenarians at that. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Newshunter12 put it best: this is a WP:BIO1E, the subject will have nothing else written about it as her sandwich-making skills appear not to have been notable enough to make any news that I can find. I highly doubt any reader will type her name into the search box, she can be preserved in the longevity tables that currently exist. Ifnord (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trillfendi (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Quinn (politician)[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Quinn, who is a Libertarian, lacked significant press coverage and has most likely never held political office. He received 1.46% of the vote and reportedly 0.6% of the vote in 2014 and 2018, respectively. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC); edited 09:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see how that's going to prevent this article from getting deleted. You haven't added anything new yet. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Maryland gubernatorial election, 2018. Essentially a campaign brochure, and he won't win. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not yet won — no, not even at the gubernatorial level. To qualify for an article, he would need to (a) win the election, (b) already have a strong claim to preexisting notability for other reasons, besides the candidacy itself, that would already have gotten him an article on those grounds anyway, or (c) receive so much more coverage than most other candidates across the United States are also getting that there would be credible grounds to claim his candidacy as a special case over and above most other people's candidacies. But none of those things are shown here at all — and the fact that a bit of campaign coverage exists is not a free WP:GNG pass that exempts a candidate from having to pass NPOL just because of that campaign coverage's existence, because every candidate always gets some campaign coverage, so every candidate would always get that free pass and NPOL would automatically be gutted as having no applicability at all anymore. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat. SportingFlyer talk 00:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Low octane political ad for an unelected politician. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat. Winners, not candidates, meet notability criteria for WP:NPOL. Ifnord (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Maryland gubernatorial election, 2018. Sandstein 11:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Schlakman[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Schlakman, who is from the Green Party, lacked significant press coverage and has most likely never held political office. He finished fourth in the 2018 Maryland gubernatorial election, reportedly with 0.5% of the vote. There's not a lot of content in this article besides his political positions. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC); edited 06:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not yet won — no, not even at the gubernatorial level. To qualify for an article, he would need to (a) win the election, (b) already have a strong claim to preexisting notability for other reasons, besides the candidacy itself, that would already have gotten him an article on those grounds anyway, or (c) receive so much more coverage than most other candidates across the United States are also getting that there would be credible grounds to claim his candidacy as a special case over and above most other people's candidacies. But none of those things are shown here at all — and the fact that a bit of campaign coverage exists is not a free WP:GNG pass that exempts a candidate from having to pass NPOL just because of that campaign coverage's existence, because every candidate always gets some campaign coverage, so every candidate would always get that free pass and NPOL would automatically be gutted as having no applicability at all anymore. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Just like Shawn Quinn (politician), merely being a candidate is not enough for notability. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then redirect per Bkissin. SportingFlyer talk 00:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Maryland gubernatorial election, 2018 per Bkissin, subject fails WP:NPOL. Ifnord (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 17:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Moscow (Baku)[edit]

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

A now demolished hotel that existed only for 23 years. No sources provided to show notability. I can see only passing mentions and trivial sources in searches, fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I tried looking for something, maybe architecturally, that made this former hotel notable but I failed. Ifnord (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another hotel. Nothing of significance to help it pass WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 08:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teppo Takala[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Was unable to find reliable secondary sources coverage. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 17:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw talk 22:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:POLOUTCOMES says that ambassadors are not inherently notable. I tried googling from Finnish-language sources and there was nothing substantial, just mentions that he was the ambassador to Mexico etc. --Pudeo (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 17:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rappal Sukumaramenon[edit]

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

Non notable subject that clearly fails WP:GNG for lack of significant reliable secondary sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 17:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw talk 22:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of sources dedicated to the subject Spiderone 13:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While I do see that he is mentioned in a couple of articles as the lyricist Rappal Sukumara Menon, he is not notable enough to warrant his own article.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. At the moment, this article is simply too soon. I would not be opposed to its recreation given time and on the condition that there be suitable sources at said time to demonstrate adequate notability per the relevant notability guideline(s). TheSandDoctor Talk 17:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Zajdel[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a film director, whose claims to notability are referenced entirely to junk sourcing. The references here include IMDb (three times), Instagram posts (twice), a YouTube video, his own self-published website, a directory listing of his record as a baseball player at the high school level, and a piece of user-generated content on medium.com -- none of which are reliable or notability-supporting sources. And of the two sources that actually represent media coverage, both are covering him solely in the context of building stuff in his back yard when he was a teenager, and even one of those is just a short bit about him in the editor's letter on the masthead page of a minor special-interest magazine, not substantive coverage about him in a major media outlet. So these sources are failing right across the board to make him notable enough for a Wikipedia article -- it's 80 per cent sources that can't support notability at all, and 20 per cent sources that aren't covering him in a noteworthy context. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DELETION — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewFayer (talk • contribs) 15:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This editor who is proposing the deletion of this article believes he or she has significant points, except for the fact that they are entirely bias. He or she begins the dispute using the term "Junk Sourcing" which is a personal stance taken entirely from the opinion of this editor, with no given points. This editor took very little time to truly assess what these sources are, and the reason why these sources were used.

This editor begins by addressing issues from a personal standpoint, not reading the articles and leaving out the bigger picture. The editor proposing the deletion quotes "a directory listing of his record as a baseball player at the high school level" In the article this source, in no way was referring to the notability of this individual as baseball player, but rather further sourcing that this individual "graduated from Canton High School".

Another quote from the editor "just a short bit about him in the editor's letter on the masthead page of a minor special-interest magazine" again this source was not in any way intended to reference his notability of a director, but further establishing that he did indeed have a passion for art and creation at a young age.

The editor also quotes "it's 80 per cent sources that can't support notability at all, and 20 per cent sources that aren't covering him in a noteworthy context" This editor is taking the amount of sources listed and using that to determine "without even reading them" that they are not credible.

There are countless number or wikipedia pages that establish notability using 3 or less articles including IMDb and online publications. This article just happens to use 11 of them to further establish the notability of every sentence in the bio. 

I am not claiming this individual to be Steven Spielberg, however Eddie Zajdel is known for what he does in the film industry. This article is explaining in an unbiased way who Eddie Zajdel is and what he has done. This clearly fits the requirement for Wikipedia. This article uses 11 sources to insure the notably of every word written in the article.

Wikipedia quotes "sources may encompass published works in any form and media, and in any language" just because this editor in his or her opinion dislikes the articles used to determine notability, does not mean in any way that they do not establish notability. This editors proposed deletion article was poorly written with no concept, which demonstrates to me that he or she did not take the time to look deeper into the reasons these sources were used, and the true concept of this page.

This article is not the strongest article ever created on Wikipedia, but just because an editor briefly reads the article, reads none of the sources, makes irrelavent points personally assessing this individual, and fails to take the time to look deeper into the reasons why they were used is not in ANY WAY a reason for an article to be deleted.

MatthewFayer (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: MatthewFayer (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

References for the notability of a person must be reliable source coverage in media, such as newspapers or magazines or books, which represent editorial content about him by people other than himself, and which are covering him in the context of the thing that's being claimed as his reason for having an encyclopedia article. A person's notability cannot be stacked onto directories like IMDb or a high school sports database, or their own self-published websites or social networking accounts — and if the reason why he "should" have a Wikipedia article is that he makes films, then human interest coverage which supports where he went to high school but says nothing whatsoever about his work as a filmmaker does not constitute support for notability either. The rule is not that a person automatically qualifies to have a Wikipedia article as long as the things it says are referenced just anywhere — only certain specific types of sources count as valid support for a person's notability, and none of the references here are the correct kind. Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW keep. Consensus is that GNG is met; the nominator and others have been convinced by the substantial coverage demonstrated in the Keep !votes. Numerically it's something like 17-3 now. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Wohl[edit]

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

Just like the last time, and the time before, no amount of adding negative information will justify a strongly promotional article about this 20-year-old guy. wumbolo ^^^ 19:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Pinging previous discussion participants. wumbolo ^^^ 19:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (responding to ping): The two previous articles on Wohl were rightfully deleted at AfD in June 2016 and April 2017 as promotional articles for a non-notable teenager. The current article is different, and as long as it does not turn into promotionalism and lies, and if the person is currently notable enough to pass GNG and NBIO without resorting to blatant PR and puff pieces as citations, then I don't have as much objection to it (particularly since there is nothing promotional about it, much less "strongly promotional" as the nominator claims), unless someone can convince me otherwise. I'll keep this AfD on my watchlist. Softlavender (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or move to a page called "Smear campaign against Robert Mueller" or something, as this is the sole reason he is notable. Althoungh the existence of this article may give unwarranted attention to this teenage clown who definitely outsmarted himself, the incident and its resulting reports is significant enough. Especially when he is under FBI investigation. All we need is to avoid PR edits per usual practice. I just can't wait to cement him into the list of hoaxes. Comical gold. Tsumikiria (T/C) 19:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    as this is the sole reason he is notable so delete per WP:BLP1E? wumbolo ^^^ 19:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If the article does not bear standing as is (which is still debatable), rather than being deleted, the material should be merged into Robert Mueller or one of the articles on the Special Counsel Investigation or the Russian interference. Softlavender (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. If this is the case, then yes. He will likely remain as a low-profile individual. Although it is very likely that he will do more stupid things that spark future AfD nominations, his past "achievements" are irrelevant, at best. We could add a section under Robert Mueller or Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) instead. Merge Keep, from the current projection of this page Tsumikiria (T/C) 04:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is really too minor of an event for a section in those articles. Perhaps a single sentence. Good luck trying to add more than that. wumbolo ^^^ 20:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BLP1E says we can have articles on people notable for only one event if the event is significant and their role is significant. Press coverage is suggesting that will be the case for this new, bizarre development in his life. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The press coverage you linked seems to actually suggest that the event was debunked much before it even happened. WP:NOTNEWS might not even apply, because this is a non-event, if we go that way. wumbolo ^^^ 21:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (responding to ping) This is quite a different article from its last two iterations. It is focused on the one current event and I agree that per WP:BLP1E deletion is warranted. As I was trying to find sources, I ran across this quote from a Bloomberg opinion piece: "I must say that I liked Jacob Wohl a lot more when he was a comical fringe figure of the financial world than I do now that he’s a comical fringe figure of alt-right politics." A fringe figure is an appropriate description for a subject not meeting notability standards. Geoff | Who, me? 21:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above this is a minor fringe figure who has not been convicted of the political allegations and the financial misdemeaners were very commonplace unfortunately. There is a saying that all publicity is good publicity and this character certainly does not warrant it for his WP:BLP1E charades, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Even prior to the Mueller thing, he had plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject Web, News, so this is not a WP:BLP1E instance. He is a noted "pro-Trump internet troll" (New York Times) and "alt-right influencer" (Wired). He is notable as a conspiracy theorist and as a fraudulent financier. He is also currently under investigation by the FBI. This new article, unlike the previous iterations written by SPAs, is devoid of promotionalism. Softlavender (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Misleading, apparently bad-faith nomination. The nominator never participated in the previous AfDs (and presumably also never saw those articles), and this new article is in no way promotional at all. The nominator nonetheless falsely claimed this new article is "strongly promotional" and immediately pinged participants in the old AfDs, in an apparent effort to get them to react to the false claim in his nomination rather than to actually read the new article or do due diligence. Softlavender (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, can't improve an article if it doesn't exist. X1\ (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I initially recommended deleting an earlier version of this article in April, 2017 but withdrew my !vote after Icewhiz expanded and improved the article considerably. See WP:HEYMANN. Now, we have a new round of significant coverage of Wohl from the Daily Beast, the Atlantic, GQ, Vox, CNN, Slate, NBC and so on. I considered him borderline notable a year and a half ago, but he is definitely notable now. This article should be kept and the useful content from the previously deleted versions should be added back into the current article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Cullen that the the useful content from the previously deleted versions should be added back into the current article. Softlavender (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Only notable for his political stunt of the day, which will be forgotten within a week. Wikipedia should not give him a soapbox. — JFG talk 01:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, his political stunts go way back and have been reported extensively on RS prior to this Mueller hoax. Softlavender (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Significant coverage here, plus purely fringe individuals don't usually appear as a subject on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live! or receive in-depth coverage in Vanity Fair. Even read excessively strictly, he meets the GNG policy anyways. Isingness (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In 2017 we has an edit war between a promo account and other SPAs who were trying to highlight some of Wohl's many exploits (and we had a handful - running foul of the NFA, using Instagram models to lure clients, financial training courses that included IIRC hookers, his business dealings at age 17, claims around Rachel G. Fox, real estate, politics, and a bunch of other stuff) - all this received coverage (all be it local and in financial sites for various schemes) - and at last AfD I argued SIGCOV - in any event even back then it was not a 1E. The Muller thing obviously adds a whole bunch of new coverage - and only adds to notability here. I will also note this is a high profile and "noisy" individual - we will probably see yet more coverage. I do think there are balance issues in the present article but deletion is not cleanup.Icewhiz (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep soibangla (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a clear pass of WP:GNG. Issues of balance can be addressed through editing. Bakazaka (talk) 06:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article has the potential to be of service to users trying to keep track of and understand events and persons associated with the Mueller investigation. KConWiki (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could NEVER, EVER disagree with Muboshgu or Cullen328. Having said that, I disagree with Muboshgu and Cullen328. I thought he was non-notable as a person before, and his involvement with this scam (ALLEGED scam, whatever) doesn't add much. We don't need an article on him to solidify our understanding of current political events, and to the extent that this is a noteworthy thing (all the more noteworthy since NOTNEWS has gone by the wayside), it can be covered in any of the two million articles associated with Trump, Mueller, etc., with a redirect for those who seek him. Nor do I see that recent coverage has added much to our understanding of this person and his biography--let me note, for instance, that the Vox article "nails" him in one and a half sentences: "a 20-year-old conservative who’s most famous for sending speedy sycophantic replies to Trump’s tweets and making implausible, factually dubious claims. He also ran some shady hedge funds." We can do that too, and we should, because there simply isn't that much to tell him. So, delete -- and/or redirect, if you like. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will NEVER, EVER give in to Cullen328 and his tyranny of "coverage in reliable sources", EVER. Having said that, dude's got a point. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are more than enough reliable sources covering the subject to satisfy the GNG. If the article lacks balance or needs editing then edit it, that's what we do here. AfD is not for cleanup. EDIT: I also note there is apparently no puffery or promotion in this article, and it appears to me to simply state was the sources say. EnPassant (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Multiple news outlets are reporting this guy's involvement with a scheme to frame Robert Mueller for sexual assault. He wasn't notable before, but the way this is going, he's notable now. Lordbedo (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: it's easy to say "passes GNG", pointing at a half dozen or a dozen articles, but what we really need is significant discussion of the subject. What we have now is tidbits and involvement in a scandal. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pretty much a slam dunk keep, given substantial coverage of the person by multiple reliable sources, that are not only covering the latest scandal, but delving into his background. --Rob (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we should keep based on the fact that of course we are going to have an article on this person. He has entered history now. The whole affair is something some non-zero number of people will want to learn about even 100 years from now. OTOH I'd be OK with cutting it back to a stub for a while on BLP grounds. There's no super hurry here. And the hedge fund stuff is sub-notable. It is useful for answering the question "what is this entity" tho. Herostratus (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This guy's become notable. He's now the subject of tories like this one[2]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I nominated this). This has spawned a lot of coverage. Good prediction skills by early keep !voters. wumbolo ^^^ 22:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This fellow has now applied his talents in multiple fields so it's no longer WP:BLP1E. It will be interesting to follow his accomplishments as he moves into, say, the art world or medicine. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or particle physics. Sky's the limit. Softlavender (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Titan Chowdhury[edit]

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

Notability? Didn't pass WP:GNG or WP:FILMBIO. This article is created by a sockpuppet. Anyway, the article is also Wikipedia:TOOSOON. I didn't find anything notable in bengali & english (Only some passing mentions are available). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Not a notable person. He does not have any notable work.--Rocky Masum (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @RockyMasum:, for future reference, !votes here are prefixed with/indicated by bolded text rather than a template such as {{agree}}. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Sdmarathe (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because she fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, fair and simple. Even the only reference in the article is not a significant coverage which accounts towards notability. No notable multiple roles as well. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Any redirect to a list after she's included on it is an editorial decision (she isn't currently part of List of American supercentenarians). Sandstein 08:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan[edit]

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

Non-notable oldster. A couple of obituaries and GRG statistics are just routine coverage, and the desperate attempt to fluff this up by sticking in links to completely unrelated articles about other Puerto Rican people shows that there's WP:NOPAGE here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia fluff about her family and the documentation she had proving her age claim. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on four different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Once the trivia about longevity stats is removed, there remains nothing of substance about this person's life. Her entry in the various "oldest people" tables is enough to convey the only thing that she is notable for, i.e. her exceptional longevity. — JFG talk 23:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could people please refrain from using ageist derogatory terms like oldster. It is disrepectful. I have no opinion whether or not this article is kept or deleted, but this ongoing use of a debasing term on several of the AfD is unencyclopedic and unprofessional, if not bigoted. Netherzone (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, put a sock in it; it's just an informal term. "Unencyclopedic"? A meaningless term, and besides this discussion isn't part of the encyclopedia. "Unprofessional"? We're not professionals. "Bigoted"? Get a grip. EEng 03:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear User:EEng What is the "it" that you refer to, please, where I should put the item of footware? I'm sorry if I misunderstand, but I thought this was an encyclopedia and that the AfD was public. Sorry. Forgive me if I misunderstood. Yes it is true that "oldster" seems like a bigoted statement from my cultural standpoint, and I now understand that it is not derogatory from your standpoint. What is the item that you are suggesting for me to grip? Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Netherzone:
  • The "it" is wherever you need to put the footwear (not "footware", which would be something like items of commerce made from feet, I guess) to restrain yourself from spouting further nonsense.
  • You do misunderstand. Article space constitutes the encyclopedia we're working on (if we weren't wasting our time on this absurd debate over imagined disrespect, of course); this is project space.
  • This has nothing to do with "cultural standpoints" (apparently a phrase meaning "I freely assign significance to things according to personal whim") but rather with you not doing your homework. Some terms have ambiguous meanings or shades of connotation, but this isn't one of them. Since you're a "University professor and administrator" I would think you'd know how to look things up on your own, but since I'm in a generous mood here're the OED definitions for oldster:
1. Nautical. A midshipman who has served for over four years. Cf. youngster
2. A person who is no longer a youth or novice; an elderly or experienced person.
Now you tell me: in a discussion of persons 110 years of age or older, what's "bigoted" about "no longer a youth... elderly or experienced"?
  • The item you should grip is reality; that should help you release your ridiculous pretended sensitivity over made-up offenses.
Anything else I can clarify for you, Mr. or Ms. "cultural worker" (and I'm trying not to laugh at that as a label self-applied)? Next time, as my junior high school shop teacher used to say, make sure brain is engaged before putting mouth (or pen, or keyboard) in gear, and especially before spamming the same knee-jerk scolding into three (THREE!) different AfDs after apparently taking zero (ZERO!) time to find out what you're talking about. EEng 15:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge to an appropriate list. Article even more vacuous than usual, especially after you discount the history of Puerto Rican education and the fascinating (and dubious) information that two people were "interviewed together" for the census a hundred years ago. EEng 03:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States#List of people in lieu of deletion. There is enough sourced biographical information in the article to support a merge. Cunard (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect to appropriate list per WP:NOPAGE. Majority of this article is longevity trivia that someone was thought to be oldest until her her age was verified (there's an entire paragraph that screams original research about how her age was verified). Other than that, she was born, got married, adopted her nephew, got old and then died. Removing the longevity trivia and the padded fluff (interviewed for the 1920 census and early Puerto Rican edumacation) and there's nothing that can't easily be handled on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I find it intriguing that she was able to live so long after being edumacated. EEng 15:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation 2 games with alternative display modes[edit]

List of PlayStation 2 games with alternative display modes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find video game sources: "List of PlayStation 2 games with alternative display modes" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Just a list of games and what display size they are compatible with. Another similar article has been removed for the same reasons [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of GameCube games with alternate display modes] Ajf773 (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEFINING. Such trivia fails WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. If significant, then reliable sources would cover this, which they really don't. In short, same rationale as the previous AfD had. This may be useful information (however, WP:USEFUL) and the concept of display modes may have sourcing (however, WP:NOTINHERITED), but this doesn't establish stand-alone WP:LISTN-like reasoning. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unsourced technical gamecruft. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Xbox games with alternate display modes[edit]

List of Xbox games with alternate display modes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find video game sources: "List of Xbox games with alternate display modes" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Just a list of games and what display size they are compatible with. Another similar article has been removed for the same reasons Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of GameCube games with alternate display modes Ajf773 (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEFINING. Such trivia fails WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. If significant, then reliable sources would cover this, which they really don't. In short, same rationale as the previous AfD had. This may be useful information (however, WP:USEFUL) and the concept of display modes may have sourcing (however, WP:NOTINHERITED), but this doesn't establish stand-alone WP:LISTN-like reasoning. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it hurt anyone? Is it inaccurate? No? Then leave it be unless you're some sort of busybody nudnik just looking for "letter of the law" infractions to lord over everyone because you have nothing better to do.2601:40C:8300:1D35:B555:FD45:D23C:3029 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's irrelevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There are better forums for game guides and catalogues. We don't know if it is accurate either, given there are no inline citations. Ajf773 (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Convert to disambiguation page. Sandstein 08:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Curriculum (England and Wales)[edit]

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

Duplicates National Curriculum for England - the two articles should be merged. Per this 1996 source, the England and Wales national curricula were never the same: "The 1988 Education Reform Act... established a separate Curriculum Council for Wales to advise the Secretary of State and this resulted in the development of a distinctly Welsh curriculum for schools... This research... follows... the development of the Curriculum Cymreig (Welsh Curriculum) from the 1988 Act to 1st June, 1996". Our article National Curriculum for Wales covers this separate topic very well. Algarve1233 (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I put it here because this article had a previous deletion discussion, which was also in effect a merger. Because this is the second nomination I felt it should have a full review. Algarve1233 (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's fine, just pointing out that there's a specific procedure for proposed merges. Matt14451 (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or convert to a dabpage. Education is a devolved matter. England and Wales each has its own National Curriculum, so that this attempt to combine themis doomed to failure. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to a dabpage as per above - Both articles now exist however "National Curriculum England and Wales" is still commonly used[3] so it would make sense to create it as a dabpage. –Davey2010Talk
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The refs have been discussed at length and the noms interpretation of them not accepted, new refs were also added. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tami Lancut Leibovitz[edit]

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

There is something almost funny about a self-professed etiquette expert paying to have an article written about herself, in violation of perhaps not the letter of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but certainly the spirit of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. As for the letter of the policies and guidelines, the article contains a number of claims that cannot be verified by independent, reliable sources, and the coverage in some of the sources is not exactly significant. The BBC calls her "one of the country's leading image gurus", but fails to say much about her. I don't think the requirements of the WP:GNG are met. Vexations (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vexations - Thank you for your Comments. Tami Lancut Leibovits is a notable person in her field as mentioned by the BBC. I've noted from your comments that additional verified, independent, reliable sources are needed. Besides the BBC, I've listed "Ynet" and "Haaretz" which are very important and significant news websites in Israel. I've also added as a reference a video Interview from the "Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation" (Hebrew subtitles available). Following your comments I've added another reference from Globes - a well known business Newspaper in Israel. I think that by the above references the requirements of the WP:GNG are met. If you believe that still additional resources are needed I'll add some more. Please let me know if you find any other issue in this article that you think should be fixed. Thanks again for your comments. Arielinson (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Arielinson,
  • [4] is not about the subject, but dedicates three sentences to her. That is not significant coverage.
The BBC coverage is a source for the fact that TLL is a person of significance. It is clearly mentioned there.the source is significant.Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Arielinson, "significant coverage" refers to the source as the content of the article, not the author or the publisher. The BBC is considered a reliable source, but not everything they publish is "significant coverage". In this case, the BBC, a reliable source provided a trivial mention. Vexations (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • [5] I don't read Hebrew, but it looks like the only mention of the subject is a quote by her.
This Hebrew reference is saying that TLL is a consultant for business executives. The source is major Israeli newspaper. Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Arielinson, So it really has nothing to offer other than "Tami Lancut-Leibowitz, an image and communications consultant for executives and businesspeople". That's not in-depth coverage. And it just repeats what's already been sourced to other sources. Adding references for the sake of increasing the number of references, especially in a paid article is unnecessary. Use only the best sources. If there is a better source that supports this claim, use that one. Vexations (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • [6] more quotes by the subject.
the quote "image consultant guru" is not a quote by the subject. It shows that the subject is of significance. Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Arielinson, I was referring to the quotes provided by her. You seem to think that "image consultant and etiquette guru Tami Lancut Leibovitz, who has become a devoted viewer of the Knesset Channel in preparation of the new role and has been able to map the lawmakers' key problems" establishes that the subject is notable. It doesn't. It merely asserts that she is an etiquette guru. There's no analysis of what she's done, what kind of change she has effected or how her work has transformed Israeli society for example. Merely saying someone is something doesn't make it so. You also need to show it. Vexations (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • [7] is a video of the subject appearing on a television show
Indeed. the TV inteview from a major Israeli news channel shows that the subject is of significance thus the WP:GNG are met and the article should not be deleted.Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • [8] is bylined DPA. I'm not surewho DPA refers to: Deutsche Presse-Agentur? but it's a promotional article that offers no critical assessment or analysis of the subjects contributions to thinking about etiquette.
again this article was published in a major Israeli Newspaper. It is a reliable source. Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Arielinson, yes, we generally consider Haaretz a reliable source. That doesn't mean they don't occasionally publish material that offers no critical assessment or analysis, which is why my objection. Vexations (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • [9] is a blog, not a relibalesouce.
If you beleive this source is not needed it can be deleted. there is another reliable source instead. but I think it should be kept as another source even if it might be considered less credible. Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • [10] is by the subject
I dont see a reason removing this source if othere reliable significant sources exist to support the article. Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Arielinson, as pointed out above, we prefer to use the best available secondary source. If such a source exists, it should be used in stead of the primary source. Vexations (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, there is no in-depth, significant coverage that is about her by independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a "dpa" logo at the bottom of that article mentioned in bullet #5 above, and it matches the logo shown in the article about Deutsche Presse-Agentur. In the middle of that article I see "— Advertisement —", but I'm not sure whether this means that the whole article is an advertisement or not. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations Following your helpful comments I've added another source which is an in -depth significant coverage about TLL by another reliable source - "Makor Rishon." Yet another major news site in Israel. I've also responded above to your comments about the sources. I think all sources shows that the subject of this article is of significance and thus this article should not be deleted from that WP:GNG reason. Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations First of all thank you for your comments and for your help in editing the article. I've noticed that next to the statement "The institute provides consultation services on etiquette for local and international clients such as business executives and government officials." you added "not in the citation given". In the citations I've listed it is clearly mentioned that TLL trained business executives and government officials. It clearly support this fact. Therefore I think that "not in the citation given" should be removed. Please let me know your thoughts about this. Thanks. Arielinson (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article is irritatingly promotional at its core. Yes, the subject has been mentioned in some articles about etiquette, but as best I can tell, the articles were focused primarily on the topic of etiquette rather than on the person who is the subject of the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BarrelProof thank you for your comment. I did my best to make this article non promotional and list only facts about the person. If you find promotional content please let me know where it is and I'll delete it myself. I think every aspect in this article is important biographic data about this person. Following your comment saying the articles are mostly about etiquette I've added another source in Hebrew which is dedicated to the person in this Wikipedia article. Arielinson (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As time has passed since my comment above was made, the content of the article has evolved, and the discussion here has included enough additional information that I no longer think the article should be deleted. I therefore have struck through my prior "delete" recommendation. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Tami Lancut Leibovitz is a notable person in Israel, well know for her etiquette expertise. Wrote few books at the subject and lectures. I added a link to the article about her in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Ovedc (talk) 08:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Leibovitz is a well known person. Also as a Wiki-woman I think that there are not enough articles about significant Israeli women. Keep. Laliv g (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Laliv g, This discussion is about whether the subject of the article is notable. Notability, unfortunately, has a very specific and somewhat idiosyncratic meaning in Wikipedia. Famous, well-known or important are not the same as notable. Please see WP:N. The fact that women are underrepresented in Wikipedia has no bearing on the notability of this particular subject. What we're trying to determine in this discussion is if there is sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to sustain an article about the subject. If you think such coverage exists, but is not currently in the article, you should feel free to add it to the article or mention it here. Notability is determined by the existence, not necessarily the inclusion, of such sources. Vexations (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations. I think many resources and sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources have been provided in the article to support the fact that this person is notable. According to WP:BIO "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;". As far as I can see, multiple resources have been provided to show that . Arielinson (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: Not sure if these contribute to the subject's notability or not, but here are some links to articles I found on Newspapers.com: [11][12][13]. Also see lengthy interview: "Ilene R. Prusher. (January 8, 1998). MAKING ISRAEL SAFE FOR THE CIVILIZED. The Jerusalem Report." I'd be curious what coverage exists (or not) in Hebrew language sources. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thsmi002, Two of those are by the same author, Charles W. Holmes, and their content is nearly identical. What I have an issue with is that they don't actually say much about the subject. If I were to try to summarize what the article says about her, I can find: she is soft-spoken; she aims to teach Israelis good manners; she attributes the lack of good manners to the fact that Israel is a country with a high proportion of immigrants that lacks a collective culture; she is the author of three books; she operates a training facility where she teaches etiquette. That's it. Vexations (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thsmi002 Thank you very much for your helpful comments. I think the coverage shows that the subject of this article is a person of significance. (Since the reason listed for deletion here is the notability of the person.)I have added one of your links as a resource to support the fact that she was an interior designer at her early life. (since "citation needed" was listed over there). I also added the Boston globe article to show that TLL trained business executive and politician as mentioned in the article. Arielinson (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leibovitz appears to be the president of the Israeli Confrérie de la Chaîne des Rôtisseurs per [14]. Thsmi002 (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thsmi002, Thank you for this comment. I've added that to her bio.Arielinson (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The cited sources discuss the subject of the article substantially. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No need to troll this article with petty peckering. TaBaZzz (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 08:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Logan Moore[edit]

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

Not notable. Former child actor with a small selection of credits and the only sources are IMDb and a passing mention on futoncritic. The article has been notability and blp tagged for nearly 8 years and no sources have been added. CallyMc (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:01, 31 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of landlocked U.S. states[edit]

List of landlocked U.S. states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is being nominated for deletion because it generally lacks any reliable references, it uses a categorization system (singly, doubly?) that is confusing, and doesn't provide the reader with any usable information. The inherent problem with this list article is that it does not provide context as to what exactly is a landlocked U.S. state and provide backing as to what is or is not a landlocked state with a reference. See also: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_31#Category:Landlocked_U.S._states, category up for deletion. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article is supported by but a single source, of questionable reliability (one “Victor Kiprop”, at worldatlas.com). An online search turns up no official, or for that matter any, RS that adopts or expands on the concept of “landlocked U.S. states”. In addition to the sourcing / OR problem, the demarcations set forth in the article are contradicted by both common sense and reliably-sourced facts: For example, the Great Lakes are deemed to be “landlocked” yet they are open to ocean-going vessels by way of the St. Lawrence Seaway, and such vessels routinely transport goods in and out of the freshwater ports of the Great Lakes. To describe states such as Minnesota - or Michigan, which is literally surrounded by water - as “landlocked” simply because they don’t border on salt water, is nonsensical. JohnInDC (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—per above, this concept just isn't apparently supported in sources. Imzadi 1979 → 18:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTTRIVIA and lacks reliable sources to make it a notable topic. Ajf773 (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or weak delete: Either reliable sources need to be found, and the page revamped to be more easily understood, or possibly deleted. However, I don't want it deleted. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under the contingency that more reliable sources are found.--AirportExpert (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]
  • Keep - this list is making an interesting contribution to Wikipedia's coverage of geography of the United States. Vorbee (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks reliable sources. And please people, "It think this is interesting, so we should keep it" is not a valid keep reason. Everything is here because someone thought it interesting FOARP (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does not provide reliable sources, sorry! Alex-h (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sourcing is sparse online, but I added a reference to the article. Don't care which way this one goes. SportingFlyer talk 10:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Geography cruft. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as cruft. This is not a notable concept as 56% of states are included. I can't even imagine how anyone would find that interesting but that doesn't matter because it is not notable. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Doubly landlocked isn't a confusing category, it's a geographical term that applies to nations or states that are two or more territories away from an ocean or major body of water, whereas nations such as Liechtenstein and Uzbekistan fit that term. Per WP:PRESERVE, I believe I can fix the article to avoid a deletion and solve the problems in this article. Landlocked states is an important category that fits properly into several U.S. geography categories. The category is notable because a quick google search turns up several results, many of which I will add to this article. After I fix this up, I would like to see a relist per WP:HEY. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 14:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was unable to find any meaningful sourcing for this concept, as applied to US States, other than that one Worldatlas.com article. If you can find other RSs, please add them. But take care that when you are adding sources, you are not simply adding in websites that mirror or expressly derive from this very article. I've just removed a Revolvy.com source that suffered that defect. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. www.worldatlas.com seems like a sufficiently reliable source. And, certainly, you can verify each individual state, for example, Utah.[2] -- RoySmith (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - A single source, of marginal quality, bolstered by synthetically cobbling together passing references one-by-one from (it would appear) up to 50 other unrelated sources, doesn't meet WP:GNG. The only source for this compilation is a one-off article, which has garnered no other amplification, corroboration or commentary. And, as commenters above have noted, the underlying concept of "landlocked", which is descriptive, politically determinative and meaningful when applied to nations themselves (not to mention abundantly sourced, e.g., NY Times, The Economist, The World Bank, United Nations) - is trivial when applied to political subdivisions within a nation. JohnInDC (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

    The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "landlocked U.S. states" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

    Sources

    1. Kiprop, Victor (2018-05-08). "The Doubly Landlocked US States". World Atlas. Archived from the original on 2018-11-10. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

      The article notes:

      Doubly landlocked states refer to the states that have to cross the boundaries of two other states to access the nearest gulf, bay, sea, or ocean. Of the fifty states of the United States, ten are doubly landlocked, 17 states and DC are singly landlocked, while Nebraska is the only triply landlocked state.

    2. Yoder, Rick; Harding, David. Nebraska Curiosities: Quirky Characters, Roadside Oddities & Other Offbeat Stuff. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-7627-4683-5. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

      The book notes:

      A state is considered landlocked if it is not bordered on any side by a ... and body of water (except rivers). Eleven states—Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming—qualify as doubly landlocked, which means they are surrounded by landlocked states. The emphasis is on “land.” But Nebraska is the only state that can claim to be trebly landlocked, which means all the states surrounding it (Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, South Dakota, and Wyoming) are doubly landlocked.

    3. O'Neill, Junella Pusbach (1999). The Great New England Sea Serpent: An Account of Unknown Creatures Sighted by Many Respectable Persons Between 1638 and the Present Day. Camden, Maine: Down East Books. ISBN 978-0-89272-461-1. OCLC 41299254. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

      The book notes:

      In North America, some of the best examples of fossilized plesiosaurs have been discovered in an area that was once a large inland sea (the Western Interior Seal stretching from the Arctic to the Gulf of Mexico and encompassing the now landlocked states of Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and the Dakotas as well as parts of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Minnesota, and Iowa.

    4. Hutton, Thomas (2009). "Energy Policy Act §216:A Power Worth Preserving" (PDF). Environmental Law Institute. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-11-10. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

      The article notes:

      BLM lands are located overwhelmingly west of the Mississippi, including much of the arid, landlocked states of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah, and very little of the coastal states of California, Oregon, and Washington.

    5. Wulfsberg, Rolf M.; Lang, Darryl A. (1974). Recreational Boating in the Continental United States, in 1973: The Nationwide Boating Survey. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Transportation. p. 25. OCLC 973421254. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

      The book notes:

      However, it is notable that California, Rhode Island, and Texas- -all states which are located on maior bodies of water—had low densities, while the landlocked states of Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, and Mississippi were far above the national average of 39.7 boats per 1,000 residents.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I fretted above about synthesizing a list out of passing mentions from 50 unrelated sources, but it looks like the figure may be closer to 150. The concept is trivial, the mentions are trivial, and more sources to support synthesis doesn't make something reliably sourced! The problem becomes even clearer when one contemplates how to meaningfully include these offhand mentions as actual refs in support of a comprehensive “List” article. JohnInDC (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thank you User:Cunard for the collection of sources, which is handy to have perhaps, but sourcing on non-controversial facts does not need to be extensive. It cannot seriously be disputed whether a given state borders on an ocean or not; excessive footnoting (all footnoting?) should be removed as a matter of editing. This is a basic, gateway, child-accessible type article like those about flags and number of colors in them, which have also come up for deletion (and have been "Kept"). There is apparently some fundamental disagreement about what is encyclopedic. In my opinion, these all are basic to allowing children and adults into understanding about our world. Including learning about the encyclopedia works. These are highly encyclopedic, even central. No purpose is served by deleting such. --Doncram (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Arizona and USS Arizona: A landlocked state and its devotion to a Navy ship".
  2. ^ "Landlocked Utah's Place Names Have Proved Seaworthy - Utah Department of Heritage and Arts". Utah Department of Heritage and Arts. Retrieved 9 November 2018.
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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lockley[edit]

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

Was going to CSD this but not sure how promotional this really is. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this, but I don't think this is entirely promotional, it is about an author (me) who has several books. It is also linked to other pages including one which cites one of my books (the only book on the subject in the world.) I have tried to tone it down by removing a reference to good reviews in Japan. If you have any other ideas for making it more objective, please edit or let me know. Thank you in advance for considering the article

Totally understand the points about COI, my apologies for wasting your time. Thanks for your contributions to this section and the stirling job you do for wikipedia in general. Long may it live. Best wishes, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tottoritom (talk • contribs) 21:35, 31 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. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul B. Pieper[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches are only providing quotations from the subject regarding religion and acting as a spokesperson (which are primary in nature), minute passing mentions and name checks. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which are not usable to qualify notability. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources appears to exist. North America1000 19:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- General authorities in LDS are like bishops in the Catholic Church. Wikiproject religion considers bishops in the Catholic Church and analogous churches to be notable per WP:BISHOPS. Note that LDS bishops are not automatically notable per this guideline, but LDS general authorities are not bishops, as stated. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – WP:BISHOPS is an opinion essay; it is not a guideline or policy at all. There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia whatsoever. North America1000 18:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing the basic notability criteria. Agree with NA1000 about the essay and on top of that this is a random use of it because it does not mention the general authorities and as such is a Synth by the keep !voter. --Dom from Paris (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BASIC and WP:GNG are not satisfied. WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing, and the references in the article are either passing mentions, barely connected to the subject or dead links. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This is the same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin W. Pearson. Sandstein 09:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin R. Duncan[edit]

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

A non-notable subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources does not appear to exist. WP:BEFORE searches only provide quotations from the subject regarding religion and acting as a spokesperson (which are primary in nature), fleeting passing mentions and name checks. Furthermore, primary sources present in the article and found in searches are not usable to qualify notability. North America1000 19:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- General authorities in LDS are like bishops in the Catholic Church. Wikiproject religion considers bishops in the Catholic Church and analogous churches to be notable per WP:BISHOPS. Note that LDS bishops are not automatically notable per this guideline, but LDS general authorities are not bishops, as stated. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – WP:BISHOPS is an opinion essay; it is not a guideline or policy at all. There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia whatsoever. North America1000 18:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments above. If North America truly disagreed with the bishop's view, he would take on the only sourced to a bare-bones date listing blog articles on bishops, instead of sourced to full bio articles written by third parties articles as we have on these general authorities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Regarding the above !vote:
  • It does not provide a valid rationale for article retention.
  • Its thesis is utterly unclear; this article and deletion nomination is about Kevin R. Duncan, not some other subject.
  • Primary sources are just not usable to establish notability.
  • There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia.
– I sure hope this isn't closed based upon a simple !vote count. Thus far, not even one source has been presented herein to back up assertions of notability, which at this point, are all based upon personal opinion, rather than guidelines. North America1000 01:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing the basic notability criteria. Agree with NA1000 about the essay and on top of that this is a random use of it because it does not mention the general authorities and as such is a Synth by the IP user. They say they are like bishops (according to whom?) so should be seen as notable but as this is an essay that deosn't mention them I can't see how it can be used. --Dom from Paris (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like NorthAmerica said, I hope admin will look thorough into the keep votes instead of closing this as a pure no consensus AfD. Firstly, like it was already said, WP:BISHOPS is not a guideline, therefore the keep votes are not using the things right here. This subject fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG, no coverage is present in the article or in BEFORE search. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Manson[edit]

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

Non-notable minor performer; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Previously deleted after PROD expired, and article was recreated. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His only significant role is of Psychopathia Sexualis (film) which is not enough to meet WP:NACTOR, and the subject has no coverage in secondary sources to pass WP:GNG (I was not able to find anything really. Overall, not notable. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, i googled him and looked on news, there is more about a NZ philanthropist with this name. Szzuk (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Blurb, Inc.. Agreed that the article should be redirected, whether via a failure to be notable or from (past) excessive promotion (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BookSmart[edit]

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

I think that the various and changing software tools of Blurb for creating books can be described in the main article Blurb, Inc.. Apparently, they're phasing out this particular application, as the page http://www.blurb.com/booksmart points to "other free, easy-to-use tools to create beautiful books". But I'm not proposing articles about BookWright and their other current tools, as I do not think these have any notability independently of the Blurb platform. The (rather old) articles in the "References" section are more about the offerings of Blurb in general, mentioning the then-current software BookSmart, but not focussing on the latter. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Blurb, Inc. It looks to have been created with promotional intent; on the other hand, it's been here since 2006 and the article creator hasn't been here since 2007. So I don't think it's worth the effort of deleting. Deb (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 15:42, 31 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. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transatlantic Partners Against AIDS[edit]

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

Only reference is their own press release from 2005. Doesnt seem to exist now. No real evidence of notability. Rathfelder (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 21:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: the only !vote since the last relist fails WP:EVERYONEELSE as a valid !vote
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 15:42, 31 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 09:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sayman[edit]

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

Article doesn't meet WP:BLP conditions for notability. Fails WP:GNG. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - being the youngest Product Manager at Google, and the youngest software engineer at Google, surely makes him notable. Vorbee (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Vorbee - That information isn't even sourced, and isn't a note towards notability, unless sources comment on it. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sole !vote is not policy or guideline based
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Youngest anything at Google does not make a person notable without a lot of significant sourcing, which does not appear to exist. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This could be a WP:BLP1E situation, but the notion above that significant coverage doesn't exist (e.g. "without a lot of significant sourcing, which does not appear to exist") is incorrect. Below are some sources that were found on the first two pages of search results using the Google News link atop this discussion. Are people even bothering to look for sources? It's entirely unclear.
Regarding the nomination itself, note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles, and the article presently has some reliable source references, so it's not qualifiable for deletion via being an unsourced BLP.
Regarding the sources below, some provide some interview content, but also biographical analysis/coverage about the subject as well. North America1000 08:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WAAV, Inc.[edit]

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

Fails our notability guidelines for businesses. This passed as keep in 2007, albeit weakly, but all references were removed without explanation in this revision in 2007. I've since restored them, but I don't think that they represent the significant coverage the GNG calls for, as they either mention the company simply in passing or contain routine coverage of a product or a product line launch. schetm (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I opened the first 4 refs and they didn't return anything remotely close to satisfying ncorp. Szzuk (talk) 08:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Close as consensus that it passes LISTN with the subjects of the list having been discussed as a combined group (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities who own wineries and vineyards[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of celebrities who own wineries and vineyards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivia. Many celebrities own certain types of property or endorse certain products. "List of celebrities who own X" is not a good encyclopedia topic. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew. I was expecting to find just a basic A-Z list, with a few cites, but this is a half-decent article with some prose on a notable topic. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can see where the delete argument is coming from however the article easily passes WP:GNG and WP:LISTN in my opinion, I would go so far as to say I like the article and found it really interesting read. Govvy (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A very scant discussion. But the arguments for deletion are compelling and based on the core policy WP:V. The only argument for keeping is a reference to WP:BISHOPS, which as an essay has no significance at all in a deletion discussion, and even mentions that LDS religious leaders aren't the same thing as bishops.I therefore have to close this as "delete" based on strength of argument. Sandstein 09:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin W. Pearson[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Coverage in independent, reliable sources, per WP:BEFORE searches, is limited to sermons and quotations from the subject (which are primary in nature), meager passing mentions and name checks. Furthermore, the entire article is reliant upon primary sources, which are not usable to qualify notability. North America1000 13:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- General authorities in LDS are like bishops in the Catholic Church. Wikiproject religion considers bishops in the Catholic Church and analogous churches to be notable per WP:BISHOPS. Note that LDS bishops are not automatically notable per this guideline, but LDS general authorities are not bishops, as stated. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – WP:BISHOPS is an opinion essay; it is not a guideline or policy at all. There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia whatsoever. North America1000 18:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments above. If North America truly disagreed with the bishop's view, he would take on the only sourced to a bare-bones date listing blog articles on bishops, instead of sourced to full bio articles written by third parties articles as we have on these general authorities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Regarding the above !vote:
  • It does not provide a valid rationale for article retention.
  • Its thesis is unclear; this article and deletion nomination is about Kevin W. Pearson, not some other subject.
  • Primary sources are just not usable to establish notability.
  • There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia.
– North America1000 01:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This is the same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin W. Pearson. Sandstein 09:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence E. Corbridge[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. The one reliable source in the article, from the 2009 Deseret News Church Almanac, presumably provides some coverage, but multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. The remaining three sources in the article are primary, and are not usable to establish notability. Several WP:BEFORE source searches are only providing faint passing mentions (e.g. [15]), minor quotations from the subject (which are primary in nature) and name checks. North America1000 12:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- General authorities in LDS are like bishops in the Catholic Church. Wikiproject religion considers bishops in the Catholic Church and analogous churches to be notable per WP:BISHOPS. Note that LDS bishops are not automatically notable per this guideline, but LDS general authorities are not bishops, as stated. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – WP:BISHOPS is an opinion essay; it is not a guideline or policy at all. There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia whatsoever. North America1000 18:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments above. If North America truly disagreed with the bishop's view, he would take on the only sourced to a bare-bones date listing blog articles on bishops, instead of sourced to full bio articles written by third parties articles as we have on these general authorities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Regarding the above !vote:
  • It does not provide a valid rationale for article retention.
  • Its thesis is unclear; this article and deletion nomination is about Lawrence E. Corbridge, not some other subject.
  • Primary sources are just not usable to establish notability.
  • There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia.
– I sure hope this isn't closed based upon a simple !vote count. Thus far, not even one source has been presented herein for consideration to potentially qualify notability. North America1000 01:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Community consensus has not supported treating LDS leaders as exempt from GNG, despite repeated efforts to propose such an exemption (see examples in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018). So WP:GNG applies to LDS leaders. This is not a problem for LDS leaders who actually get significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. But that's not the case for this article's subject. Sources currently in article are not independent under WP:IIS (Liahona, Almanac, lds.org) or not reliable ("Grampa Bill") and do not count toward establishing notability. Note that the Almanac is assembled by Church News staff, which is why it is not independent. Search does not find WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources, only the usual passing mentions, event announcements, and Church News items reproduced in Deseret News, along with a single name check in a 1996 local business article in his role as an attorney (under "Larry Corbridge"). The subject does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Open to reconsideration if in-depth coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, two refs in the article that don't offer notability, usually these LDS articles have a few more refs. Szzuk (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Kindred[edit]

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

No references, plus, request from subject ticket:2018102910008896 S Philbrick(Talk) 14:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search only shows passing mentions in lists of bodybuilders. He has a page on Polish Wikipedia but that page has a grand total of zero references. Even if we grant that the page is notable and has sources, it would require extensive prose work to conform to guidelines. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 03:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article has no references. My own search found no significant independent coverage of him. Papaursa (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Needs more discussion of the sources proposed by Regenspaziergang. Sandstein 09:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JsRender/JsViews[edit]

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

I'm not finding coverage meeting WP:GNG for this, and the article gives no indication of significance or note. Largoplazo (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no indication of significance through significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:IINFO.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say its popularity mostly results from its predecessor jQuery Templates, which did in fact receive broad coverage if alone for the fact that it was the "official" jQuery plugin for JS templates, and jQuery is ubiquitous. That, and the fact that a major player, Microsoft, bases several of their most well-known and widespread web apps on it. I'm a bit hard pressed to say how much coverage really define notability, but there are definitely several articles about it, and hundreds of blog posts mentioning it. Will research what the best resources are to cite. --Regenspaziergang !? 09:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple of technical points:
      • Being an offshoot of something notable doesn't confer notability. For example, every offshoot anyone's built of Mozilla isn't notable. That's where coverage comes in.
      • Blog posts mentioning it, as in passing, won't help. I guess some blogs may be considered reputable, reliable sources, and maybe some of those have the required focus on this topic.
Largoplazo (talk) 10:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An offshoot is something entirely different though. This here is more like the official version 2 of the same thing, same author and all. It has superseded the original.
I guess the most relevant discussions of JsRender come from Dan Wahlin and John Papa, Microsoft's ASP and web app gurus. Apart from that, many library ecosystems, some even out of the scope of pure JS, make use of it. It can be used with Python's Django framework, with Ruby on Rails and of course npm and others; and it's featured in a very well-received book about jQuery, jQuery Hotshot, and another book on mobile apps with jQuery. --Regenspaziergang !? 12:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Regenspaziergang (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 14:41, 31 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. Other than the article creator and some obvious socks, clear consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Merunka[edit]

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

Contested PROD, non-notable tennis player who fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search only found passing mentions. Possibly promotional as well. Iffy★Chat -- 13:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • With all due respect to Your opinion, I think this young player deserves a article here. He was one of the best Junior Players, National Team Memeber, He was an ATP Player with ATP Points, turned professional 2013there are enough references listed. Please give a chance to Stefan Merunka — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:762E:9C00:D8E8:52CD:9B70:F21E (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC) — 2A01:C22:762E:9C00:D8E8:52CD:9B70:F21E (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. [reply]
  • Stefan Merunka don’t fail at WP:Ntennis. He is a member of ATP and ITF. He has played second round of ATP 250 Malaysian Open. He deserves a place here. There is a lot of players on this side that don’t even have a half so many good results as Stefan Merunka. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spodeco (talk • contribs) 13:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC) — Spodeco (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No he fails NSPORT amd Tennis Guidelines. He has never played an ATP Tour event per all sources. He has only played minor league, and minor-minor league events and has never won. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, passes WP:NTENNIS (3.2) as he has played in ATP World Tour tournaments (ATP World Tour 250). --Gpkp (u • t • c) 16:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing vote.--Gpkp (u • t • c) 15:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gpkp: He has never played an ATP event if you check the sources. It was an error to say so in the article and it has been removed. He hasn't even won a minor league tennis event. Zero. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gpkp: He has played Qualifying of 3 ATP 250Tournaments. ATP 250 Metz, ATP 250 Kuala Lumpur, ATP Kitzbühel. Spodeco (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, passes. One of the best junior players, won first round round at ATP 250 Kuala Lumpur back in 2014,played ATP 250 in Metz and Kitzbühel, played 1. Division Club Tennis Germany  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:762E:9C00:5D95:7BD0:D376:C8F1 (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC) — 2A01:C22:762E:9C00:5D95:7BD0:D376:C8F1 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. sockpuppet of Spodeco[reply]

@BabbaQ: He has never played an ATP event if you check the sources. It was an error to say so in the article and it has been removed. He hasn't even won a minor league tennis event. Zero. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ: He has played 3 ATP Tournaments Qualifying. ATP 250 Kuala Lumpur where he won first round qualifying. ATP 250 Kitzbühel and ATP 250 Metz. ::@Fyunck(click): You are saying incorrect stuff. Is this personal against player Stefan Merunka ? He has played 3 ATP Tournaments. Qualifying belong to the Tournament. Or the Qualifying is not Tournament? Player ranked top 100 play Qualifying of ATP 250. Prove of Stefan Merunka :https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/stefan-merunka/mk29/player-activity?year=2014&tournament=atp ; https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/stefan-merunka/mk29/player-activity?year=2015&tournament=atp ; Many top 100 Players never won a Tournament. As Tennis Player you lose every week as long you are name is not Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. Spodeco (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, as he appears to meet the requirements of WP:NTENNIS #3. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upon further clarification, it appears as if he actually doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS, after all. I am now neutral here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ejgreen77: He has never played an ATP event if you check the sources. It was an error to say so in the article and it has been removed. He hasn't even won a minor league tennis event. Zero. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ejgreen77: You have right Ejgreen77. Stefan Merunka has played 3 ATP 250 Tournaments: https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/stefan-merunka/mk29/player-activity?year=2015&tournament=atp ; https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/stefan-merunka/mk29/player-activity?year=2014&tournament=atp ; I would like to see what Stefan Merunka thinks about that when someone announce , he never played ATP. He even won first round Qualifying in ATP 250 Kuala Lumpur. Spodeco (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment 3 of the keep votes above are based on a false premise, He doesn't pass NTENNIS. he fails NTENNIS as passing requires playing in the Main Draw at an ATP World Tour event. At the 3 events he played (Malaysia, Austria, France), he only ever won 1 qualifying match (thanks to a fortunate draw) and got nowhere near the main draw. Iffy★Chat -- 08:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, definitely keep the page. I could count you here 50 players or more with 10 times worse results that have page here. I could count you players, that have a page here, that never played any ATP World Tour Tournament or even ATP Challenger Tournament. Stefan Merunka played not one, he played 3 ATP 250, had an professional ATP Ranking for 4 years and so on. It would be very unfair that players like this get deleted and others who don’t match any relevance even close, have one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.118.26.164 (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC) — 95.118.26.164 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Sockpuppet of Spodeco.[reply]

Incorrect, he has played no ATP events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Passes please. — The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC). — Note to closing admin: Spodeco (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Spodeco (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page.
Goodness... I wonder how those articles got linked. What do you know, it was by you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Qualifying is not part of being in the main draw of an ATP event. It is a separate round to see if a player can qualify for the main draw. He was wiped out in all those qualifying rounds. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • First You was saying that he has never played it, that’s absolutely incorrect. According to ATP , qualifying round belongs to ATP 250 - to sign for it, you need to have ATP Points. If you have an ATP Points you are professional. Only 2000 players have ATP Points between 500.000 players trying to get it. Tennis is very hard and Players like him deserves a page here. Playing in ATP 250 in Kuala Lumpur and winning the match in front of 5500 people is not notable ? ( to see on atp stream ) Spodeco (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He has never played in those tournaments. He played in qualifying rounds to make those tournament main draws. He failed badly. He did not play in an ATP 250 event in Kuala Lumper. NSPORT and Tennis Project Guidelines are very clear on this issue. You are notable if
Has competed in the main draw in one of these higher level professional tournaments:
Grand Slam tournaments.
Men: ATP World Tour tournaments (the ATP World Tour Finals, ATP World Tour Masters 1000, ATP World Tour 500, or ATP World Tour 250).
Women: WTA Tour tournaments (the WTA Premier, the WTA International, or the WTA Tour Championships).
Has won at least one title in any of the ATP Men's Challenger tournaments.
This guy is not even remotely close. He is a minor-minor league player.... one of countless thousands. You are brand new here so maybe you haven't read through all the wikipedia guidelines. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines under notability. And please end your posts with 4 tildas "~~~~" so we can follow your posts correctly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Playing qualifying means playing the Tournament. On the very end, hennas made in total 7 ATP Points. That should be recognized as notable. I have seen a many players here with page with way worse results compared to Stefan Merunka. I think and really believe, that he deserves a page. The page looks very professionals. Thanks guys Spodeco (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't believe you. There are not "many players" here with way worse results. I'd be surprised if there are any. Many have played Fed Cup or Davis Cup, or actually played in the main draw of an ATP or WTA event. Those main draws are the major leagues of tennis just like MLB is the major league of baseball. Playing in Challengers is the minor league of tennis. These aren't on television. But even so, if you actually win a minor league Challenger level tournament, notability is implied here at wikipedia. He has not won one. In fact he was only in one and he was wiped out in the first round. The rest of his so called minor league Challenger attempts were only in trying to qualify and he was crushed in all of those. Then there are the minor-minor league ITF events. The lowest of the low in professional tennis. Has he won one of those? Nope. Almost anyone with a few dollars can play and he has never made it out of the round of 16 in even those low level events. This guy classifies as a poor tennis player that has no business having an article here. I can't even believe we are discussing this player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. I still think that Stefan Merunka deserves the page here. And I hope, my page ( Stefan Merunka ) will not be deleted and will be given a chance. Best RegardsSpodeco (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, passes WP:NTENNIS. He has also played Bundesliga in Germany in 2014.Highest division - like 1.Bundesliga in Football. Is a notable player — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcoiphone12 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC) sockpuppet of Spodeco[reply]

Note The above is a brand new editor and this is the only page they have ever edited. This does not even remotely pass WP:NTENNIS so that's 100% false. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are players like Thassilo Haun and so on with similar results who have the page. Stefan Merunka should be notable even with his playing in the Bundesliga in Germany which is recognized as highest professional Legaue.Marcoiphone12 (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC) sockpuppet of Spodeco[reply]
Thassilo Haun satisfies WP:NTENNIS because he has played in one career ATP match (His record in doubles is 0–1). Have you read the WP:NTENNIS page? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thassilo Haun is indeed a fringe player. But his results are night and day better than Stefan Merunka. For one, he actually played in the main draw of the Austrian Open on the ATP tour. He made it to finals in the minor leagues (though he never won a title in his life). Because he played one event the ATP tour he is a fringe player... no doubt about it. But there's fringe and then there's bottom of the barrel poor results like Merunka. And so on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nowhere near notable. Playing in qualifying in an ATP tournament doesn't assume notability. No promising results in Challengers either. Adamtt9 (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NTENNIS, WP:GNG. Also, if you read the first few drafts of the page, it also appears to fail WP:PROMO ("very successful company") - is this really an attempt to add a tennis player to the encyclopedia? Interesting this article's AfD has been canvassed so heavily, though! SportingFlyer talk 04:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NTENNIS as only qualifying rounds of professional tennis were reached. Obviously also fails WP:BIO grounds for his non-playing presence. As a side note, I'd be interested in some sock consideration. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The best I could do is suggest argyle or perhaps crew style socks. :-). Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable tennis player Spiderone 11:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Aditya Birla Group. North America1000 10:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Birla Capital[edit]

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

Nothing but routine coverage, PR articles, interview of the chairman. Some articles are about other business of Aditya which do not even mention this company. Probably a big marketing campaign. They also created nonnotable MyUniverse, A. Balasubramanian, Ajay Srinivasan etc. Editor General of Wiki (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COmment - We can redirect it to Aditya Birla Group, the parent organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor General of Wiki (talk • contribs) 04:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the comment above on linking it to parent page. Exploreandwrite (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:45, 31 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 09:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defend Ukraine[edit]

Defend Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find video game sources: "Defend Ukraine" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:Notability (games) Atsme✍🏻📧 12:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First glance this looks ok, but even the Ukrainian news articles are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Lack of general reviews are pretty damning for notability here. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme Can I ask you to clarify which particular points are violated in WP:GNG and WP:Notability (games)? Ped4enko (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski Do you think all the links are WP:ROUTINE? Ped4enko (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a single hit in the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine. Fails notability. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as essentially failing WP:LASTING. As noted above, the sources are routine news coverage that got highlighted due to the topic's nature. But the game itself has not received any actual in-depth coverage -- all the sources repeat the same general audience overview. While we don't necessarily want just video game sources and could consider the available ones, the problem is that one could replace the actual game with any of the million others and the articles would still say the same thing. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Coin945, have any special print/digital Ukrainian sources? (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 10:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Published sources in the article refer to such criteria rules WP:Notability (games): Published in reliable sources like Ain.ua (There are over a thousand links to publications from this source on Wikipedia.), Independent source like euromaidanpress.com. But I did not find any mention of awards or critical and detailed reviews about the game. There are some comments about the gameplay, but they are not very detailed. Ped4enko (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coin945 will you please eliminate the sources like the 1st which is a school paper - it appears there are a few others - also the short passing mentions, and will you also indicate which ones are local papers? We need to narrow it down to the RS only to establish notability. Thank you. There is also the question about the article creator being connected. They have not yet responded to my question. Atsme✍🏻📧 04:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the machine translations, even one good reference would be more than what seems to be available; judging from the obvious content, there's no reason anyone would wan to actually do a review of this trivial game. Clealy an undeclared COIedsitor, which is by itself reason to delete. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hans F. Petersen[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. The one source in the article, the Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia, presumably provides some coverage, but multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. Several WP:BEFORE source searches are only providing name checks, and nothing else. North America1000 09:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that the single cited source is the old Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia, which was written by a church historian, published by a church-owned press, and distributed free of charge to LDS stakes/wards. It is not an independent source (see WP:IIS). Bakazaka (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, google not showing anything, just one ref in the article which isn't independent. Szzuk (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would note that simply because there is a lack of sources on Google does not imply a lack of notability. This is especially true for somebody who only lived in the 19th Century and had none of their work or any sources created primarily for the internet. This isn't to say that this person is notable, but the use of Google to "prove" it is not notable is a false narrative and something that is also against Wikipedia policy. I tried to look up local histories of Ephraim Utah and couldn't find any references to this individual either, so he does appear to be simply one of many early settlers of central Utah. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject clearly existed and did the things in the article. But the subject is not notable under Wikipedia guidelines. He was one of many LDS missionaries whose story was meant to inspire other LDS members to service (and hence included in the LDS Biographical Encyclopedia, which was distributed to stakes and wards), but he did not, and does not, have general notability. Bakazaka (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This is the same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin W. Pearson. Sandstein 09:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LeGrand R. Curtis Jr.[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Searches for independent, reliable sources have only provided quotations from the subject at sermons and acting as a spokesperson (which are primary sources), minor passing mentions and name checks. The entire article is reliant upon primary sources, which are not usable to establish notability. Primary sources found in WP:BEFORE searches also do not establish notability. North America1000 12:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- General authorities in LDS are like bishops in the Catholic Church. Wikiproject religion considers bishops in the Catholic Church and analogous churches to be notable per WP:BISHOPS. Note that LDS bishops are not automatically notable per this guideline, but LDS general authorities are not bishops, as stated. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – WP:BISHOPS is an opinion essay; it is not a guideline or policy at all. There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia whatsoever. North America1000 18:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until North America puts his actions where his mouth is and starts niminating for deletion the hundreds of articles we have on Catholic bishops sourced only to a blog, this nomination clearly goes against established policy and should not be followed through on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Regarding the above !vote:
  • It does not provide a valid rationale for article retention whatsoever.
  • Its thesis is utterly unclear; this article and deletion nomination is about LeGrand R. Curtis Jr., not other subjects.
  • Primary sources are just not usable to establish notability.
  • There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia.
  • This nomination entirely follows established policy regarding deletion nominations on English Wikipedia, rather than the gross mis-characterization above as "clearly goes against". The user is making up their own policy, which is what's actually clearly against policy. Heck, I even perform WP:BEFORE source searching, which is recommended, but not required, and on top of that, I perform further customized searches to try to find usable sources.
– I sure hope this isn't closed based upon a simple !vote count. Thus far, not even one source has been presented herein to back up assertions of notability, which at this point, are all based upon personal opinion, rather than guidelines. North America1000 01:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Proposals to exempt LDS leaders from the WP:GNG have consistently failed to achieve consensus support (see examples in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018), so the subject has to be evaluated under WP:GNG. Sources currently in article are not independent under WP:IIS (Liahona, Church News, lds.org, LDS Mission Network) and do not count toward establishing notability. Search does not find WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources, only the usual passing mentions in event announcements (e.g. temple openings, reunions, religious conference speeches) and brief quotes reprinted from church sources without significant analysis. Probably the best candidate for significant coverage is 150 words in a 2017 Salt Lake Tribune piece about an LDS film, but about half of those words are direct or indirect quotes from the subject. Admittedly, a dedicated editor could make sentences from these trivial mentions to beef up the article (see WP:REFBOMB), but there remains a lack of significant coverage of the subject required by WP:GNG. Open to reconsideration if significant coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 3 refs, 1 x 404, 2 x primary, google showing church news, youtube, local, etc. Szzuk (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Unlike in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin W. Pearson, there are more sources here, which would need a more in-depth discussion. Sandstein 09:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl A. Esplin[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches per WP:BEFORE are only providing quotations from the subject (which are primary sources), minor passing mentions and name checks in independent reliable sources. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability, and primary sources found in searches also do not qualify notability. North America1000 10:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning keep. There is quite a lot of coverage of her activities, as a parenting educator, as an LDS leader on offering aid to refugees, and as an advocate of civility for activists on family and gender role issues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @E.M.Gregory: Could you post some of those sources here, so others can assess them? Are they primary or secondary sources? Do they provide passing mentions or significant coverage? Are they reliable, or unreliable? North America1000 14:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Northamerica1000, I hope that you will rephrase that request. I have, as anyone who checks can see, already begun sourcing the page. However, and more to the point, given the many AfDs in widely diverse topic areas where where we meet, it is discourteous for you to imply that I add sources, or argue that sources exist unless I have run searches and found sources. I do not add unreliable sources. Where you and I differ, is that, as WP:SIGCOV makes clear, a sentence can be SIGCOV, and I do add such coverage, while you dismiss some coverage on the grounds of brevity. These are difference of interpretation. Please also consider that in the process of rapidly bringing dozens of poorly sourced articles about individuals elected to leadership positions within LDS, you may have missed the notability of some of these Church leaders.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's up to you. I routinely provide sources in AfD discussions when opining for article retention, and I gladly do so. This is a volunteer project of course, there's no obligation. I didn't know you added sources to the article, because you didn't mention it. Nowhere at WP:SIGCOV does it state that one sentence about a subject or topic is significant coverage. Not sure how you could surmise your notion from the WP:SIGCOV page, and then consider one sentence about a person to constitute significant coverage (it's not). Under your rationale, any person on the Earth who has received a single, one-sentence mention in two different reliable publications would qualify for an article. This is not how notability is qualified at all. Regarding my AfD nominations, each and every subject or topic is researched well beyond what WP:BEFORE requires. North America1000 14:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would never argue for N on the basis of a single, brief, source. But certain brief mentions can add to a group of sources that cumulatively establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but the bottom line is that brief mentions, even several of them, such as, "the subject attended an event and said something", "the subject was promoted and moved", "the subject ate a hamburger and said they liked it", etc. do not constitute significant coverage, and therefore do not establish notability per Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which were determined by consensus. Your analysis comes across as a conflation of your own opinion regarding what should constitute notability on Wikipedia, rather than what actually does. North America1000 16:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, well, on the premise that it is more useful to improve the page than to BLUDGEON, I will continue to improve the page. Do note the women's first I have already added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but WP:REFBOMBing an article with passing mentions and primary quotations from the subject does not qualify notability per Wikipedia's standards of notability at all. The thesis of this nomination is that the subject does not meet notability requirements, rather than the notion that adding sources that do not qualify notability is "more useful". North America1000 10:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Below is a source analysis of references in the article as of this post (link). In some instances, a url is not present in the article, but I have added links to the sources below in the table, so others can assess the depth of coverage. Some sources cannot be accessed as they lack urls, and Google searches are not providing the articles at all. The subject continues to not meet WP:BASIC. North America1000 11:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Source Analysis
Pugmire, Genelle (28 March 2016). "Q and A with Sister Cheryl Esplin, first counselor in Primary General Presidency". Daily Herald. Primary source consisting of an interview with the subject
Marianne Holman, "Always involved in His great work", Church News, August 14, 2010. Primary source: not usable to establish notability
"Cheryl A. Esplin", Liahona, May 2010] Primary source: not usable to establish notability
Stack, Peggy Fletcher (3 April 2010). "New Primary presidency chosen for LDS children". Salt Lake Tribune. A single quotation from the subject, making the source primary in nature, and also Not WP:SIGCOV
"New General Authorities, Young Men Presidency and Primary Presidency Changes Announced", Mormon Newsroom, April 4, 2015. Primary source: not usable to establish notability
Walch, Ted (27 March 2015). "Preparing to split up, LDS General Primary Presidency looks back on 5 years of service together". Deseret News. Not WP:SIGCOV: Consists of one sentence about the subject, with the remaining content consisting of quotations.
"Church gets visit and training from women leaders". St. Cloud Times. 7 October 2013. (?) – Source searches are not providing the article. It's title suggests that it likely consists of routine coverage.
Walch, Tad (21 November 2015). "Mormon women leaders visit Asia". Deseret News. (?) – Source searches are not providing the article. It's title suggests that it likely consists of routine coverage.
Stark, Peggy Fletcher (20 March 2014). "A first: Photos of Mormon women leaders in Conference Center". Salt Lake Tribune. Not WP:SIGCOV: A single name check
"First Presidency Announces New Primary General Presidency", Newsroom, LDS Church, 2016-04-02 Primary source: not usable to establish notability
Stark, Peggy Fletcher (7 April 2015). "Defend 'traditional families' and beware of 'worldly dogma,' Mormons told". Salt Lake Tribune. Not WP:SIGCOV: Consists of one sentence about the subject, with the remaining content consisting of quotations.
Stark, Peggy Fletcher (3 April 2010). "Families in peril, LDS leaders warn". Salt Lake Tribune. Not WP:SIGCOV: A single name check in the image caption. The subject is not mentioned in the article body at all.
Christiansen, Barbara (28 March 2015). "LDS Women's Session focuses on family, home". Daily Herald.e Not WP:SIGCOV: Four very short sentences, with the remaining content consisting of quotes. This has no biographical information about the subject, just the subject's opinion relative to their religion.
Stark, Peggy Fletcher (9 October 2014). "Be civil in opposing gay marriage, Mormon apostle says". Salt Lake Tribune. Not WP:SIGCOV: One short sentence about the subject, and a single (primary) quotation.
"General Auxiliary Leaders: Sister Cheryl A. Esplin", lds.org Primary source: not usable to establish notability
Teaching Our Children to Understand. Cheryl A. Esplin - April 2012 General Conference. Daily Herald Primary source: not usable to establish notability
  • Comment – Check out WP:42, which summarizes notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Per Wikipedia's standards, the subject is not notable. North America1000 00:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:28, 31 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" opinion(s) is/are unconvincing and does/do not address the problems identified in the nomination. Sandstein 09:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cross Accordion Band Atticall County Down[edit]



Holy Cross Accordion Band Atticall County Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Of the 31 sources that were accesible. Passing mentions or trivial coverage : 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17(dead link), 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34, 35 Affiliated: 1 No mention of the subject: 11, 22, 31. there is literally no in-depth secondary coverage of the band. Some of their competition wins were because they were the only participants. This is really a WP:ORGVANITY page clearly edited by members of the band with comments such as "Many spectators and experts disagreed completely with the result stating in outrage that "Atticall band should have won" another said " They were the clear winners"." this page fails WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTPROMO. All the passing mentions and trivial WP:REFBOMBING does not hide the fact that this is not notable enough to have a page in WP: Dom from Paris (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:BAND is demonstrably not met (no charted singles/albums, no major music awards, etc). WP:GNG is also not met (zero results in a news search, only trivial mentions in a web search, nothing in a book/academic/other search, etc). Apart from the problems with notability, I would echo the concerns raised by the nominator in terms of WP:COI, WP:PROMO, and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Would seem to have been created purely in the interests of the group or the editor (and their goals) - rather than in the interests of Wikipedia (and its goals). In short: firm recommendation to delete. Guliolopez (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Promotional original research. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (refectoring to allow parsing Dom from Paris (talk)) Shouldn’t be deleted has numerous relevant sources that backs up all the material in the article. Anonymous860 (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Anonymous860 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • Keep (refectoring to allow parsing Dom from Paris (talk))Do not delete. The band clearly is notable enough to have a wikipedia page having been awarded the best band in Ireland 7 times, this clearly demonstrates their high profile status.They have also performed at many notable events which should also be taken into consideration. In regards to the lack of sources, there are in total 44 and 8,9,13,18,33,34 are very detailed sources explicitly on the band itself so any lack of reliable sources shouldn't be a problem. Other statements from above about why the article should be deleted are clearly untrue and show bias towards removing the page. Most of these people do not understand the magnitude of the awards that this band has won and the recognition they receive in the marching band world. It has not been created in the interest of the band but only to inform other people of their history any promotional aspects of the page have been removed and anything in the article is completely factual backed up with numerous sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.35.151 (talk) 02:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC) — 31.205.35.151 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. Taking your suggestion at face value (that the other contributors here, myself included, misread/misunderstood the relevance of the refs), I decided to take a quick look at the refs you have highlighted. IE: Numbers "8,9,13,18,33,34". In short, ref numbers 8, 18 and 34 (as they were when you posted your comment) all link to the exact same Wordpress blog post. Blog posts do not meet project guidelines for reliable sources. Not least because ANYONE can publish a blog post to say whatever they want. Even then, the publisher of this particular blog post has not made the article subject the primary topic of their blog post. So, even if a blog post WERE considered a reliable source, it still wouldn't support a claim of notability. The same goes for refs 13 and 33 (which are also duplicated links to the same blog). Finally, while ref number 9 does seem to be a link to a reliable publication (a Donegal Democrat article), the article does not mention the subject AT ALL. It is therefore irrelevant to the text which it claims to support, and is irrelevant to any claim of notability. In short, your argument is invalid - at best. And completely disingenuous - at worst. Your argument has not swayed my opinion relative to this AfD discussion. But has reinforced my concerns relative to the WP:NOTHERE and WP:ORGVANITY concerns raised by the AfD nominator. Guliolopez (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The delete vote was rebutted and the merge vote isn't as strong as the keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Internationalist Theatre[edit]

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

I believe the endgame would be a very, very selective merge to Angelique Rockas (essentially: date of creation, stated intent, list of productions, and that's it). While I could do it myself, it would be a pretty unilateral action amounting to a deletion-by-redirection, so I would rather have some community input on this.

The current state of the article is awful (highly promotional, weird formatting quirks, untranslated foreign-language quotes, etc.) and it appears to be a nest of COI editing, but it does not matter as to whether it should be kept. I will however note that all refs to newspapers are actually refs to archive.org or flickr.com clips of the newspaper, which falls afoul of WP:COPYVIOEL, and should absolutely be cleaned up even if the article is kept.

What matters is whether there are references supporting the notability of that theatre company. First thing to get out of the way: I see not a single SIGCOV source discussing the IT itself (stuff like this are more-or-less disguised interviews with Angelique Rockas).There are, however, a couple of reviews of theatre productions by that company in the main press; in the same vein as authors of notable books being notable themselves, company having made notable performances might be notable, WP:INHERITED notwithstanding. The question is whether those are enough for notability, or fall under WP:ROUTINE (being covered in the specialized pages of the press might not be enough to show notability of the company producing the play - after all, there aren't that many professionally-made plays playing at a given moment in a given city, so the local press's specialized pages will often pick it up).

The applicable guideline here is either WP:NORG or WP:NACTOR (the former refers to the latter for entertainment groups but it is not super clear to me why it should be the case). For NORG, theatre reviews fall squarely into routine territory in my eyes. For NACTOR, we can exclude #2 and #3, but one could argue about #1. My feeling from the reviews is that The Balcony has been significantly picked up in the press but none of the others, hence failing the multiple notable (...) stage performances requirement. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The nominator makes a well-argued case. The edit history of the article shows a long list of sock puppets, so WP:DENY could also be considered. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Support... what? A merge to AR with the exact same scope I suggested? (DENY is irrelevant here. I do not think pure deletion is an option here, there is certainly enough to support at the very minimum a redirect.) TigraanClick here to contact me 16:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Support... what?" – the proposal, which I understand is to selectively merge to Rockas and then leave a REDIRECT here. I don't understand why DENY would not apply. Look at the aarticle's histor and count the edits by now blocked editors. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article easily passes WP:GNG with content in reliable sources such as The Daily Telegraph, Evening Standard, BBC and the information about the company within articles about the founder definitely count for WP:GNG as the main topic does not have to be about the subject. Also AFD is not cleanup, the socks are obviously one COI editor, and the newspaper urls are an easily solved problem, just remove the urls and leave the details of the newspaper stories with cite news instead,regards Atlantic306 (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I see two kinds of newspaper sources: performance reviews and interviews with the founder (or disguised interviews). The latter certainly do not count. The beef I have with the former is that they do not directly address the topic (the theatre company), in the words of WP:SIGCOV - not only is the company not the main topic, but the company is not discussed at all. So I disagree with the idea that the company itself has been the subject of SIGCOV, which is what you are saying if I understand correctly. However, NACTOR says (groups of) actors in multiple notable performances are notable; I think they have only one notable performance (The Balcony), but I think a reasonable person could say (e.g.) that Liolà was as well and that pushes it over the bar. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable. I’ve also taken on some of the ce work at the Rockas BLP, and will be working on this one to remedy any improper influences that may have resulted from COI editing. Atsme✍🏻📧 16:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adding - Just finished a bit of CE at Angelique Rockas, removed the bulk of the Internationalist Theatre section and pointed to its main page. I’m of the mind that the prior interference with the 2 articles has subsided, although we should continue watching both articles to guard against fluff/promotion and our typical PAG vios. Atsme✍🏻📧 15:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Theatre companies are known by their productions, and given that the productions of this company have been given many reviews in significant publications (not just local and specialist ones) and by well-known reviewers such as Nicholas de Jongh, it should be notable. As for concerns over COPYVIOEL, sourcing is not about online links, therefore this is a simple matter of removing the url, rather than removing the source. Sources not available on the internet are perfectly valid (the urls are useful for ease of checking, but without the urls, the sources are still acceptable). Hzh (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any secondary sources on the company (the same applies to its leader Angelique Rockas). It is a synthesis based on primary sources (ordinary reviews or listings of some productions, interviews by Rockas et.al). If the company is notable, then why its course, and achievements are not mentioned in essays, books etc. by academics, and experts of this field, e.g. on the history of British/London/English (whatever) theatre, the underground theatre etc.? ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reviews in reliable national newspapers are not ordinary and are secondary sources not primary sources and articles including the founder that include analysis of the company are also secondary sources. Academic coverage is not essential for nonacademic subjects, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I desagree. Reviews that mostly present a theatre production to let us know what's on this season do not automatically support notability. Allmost all productions of that king get a review somewhere. Moreover, some of the reviews, like this one ([16]; ref #17) barely mention the company, while focusing to the writer and the play. These kind of reviews are primary sources, giving information on single events. All active theatre companies can get some contemporary favorable reviews for their productions. The issue is that in order for a company to be notable, there must be some reliable secondary sources on its course, an account on its productions as a whole, a reliable review of its history and an evaluation of its impact. The total lack of seconadary sources in the case of the Internationalist Theatre is crucial: how can it be an important and notable company, and at the same time completely ignored (this is also true for Rockas as an actor) from the historians and researchers of the British/London theatrical scene? A good example for my point is the staging of Griselda Gambaro's play The Camp: although Rockas and her company actually are credited by a contermporary reviewer with the first production of the play in English in London, in October 1981, there is not a single reference (as far as I have seen) to Rockas or her company in the huge English-language literature on Gambaro and her work. And this rule does not confine only to the literature on Gambaro; it's a general rule. ——Chalk19 (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At least the production is noted here - [17]. Frankly I fail to see how not being mentioned in the literature on Gambaro is relevant (that is assuming that you have actually read all of them, which I doubt is true). A theatre company that performed a Shakespeare play not being mentioned in literature on Shakespeare is hardly something I would consider relevant to the notability of that company because that company is not defined by the Shakespeare play. Hzh (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Theatricalia.com (your link) is a wiki: "Anyone can add a production if it’s not on the site" as stated in its homepage [18]. So the question -of my example above- remains: how come and the British premiere = English-language world premiere (not just any production) by Rockas' Intenationalist Theatre is not mentioned at all in the English-language literature on Gambaro, The Camp, its translations into English etc.? In Catherine Larson and Margarita Vargas (eds), Latin American Women Dramatists: Theatre, Texts, and Theories, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998, ISBN 0-253-21240-5 (pbk. edn.), Becky Boling in her essay "Reenacting Politics: The Theater of Griselda Gambaro" mentions (p.4) the US priemiere of the play in New York in 1983, but nothing is said of Rockas' Internationalist Theatre world premier in English language two years before. The same -no reference to the British, English-language world premiere- in Claire Taylor, Bodies and Texts: Configuations of Identity in the Works of Albalucia Angel, Griselds Gambaro, and Laura Esquivel, Modern Humanities Research Association, 2003. This is the rule everywhere with Rockas and her company: couldn't find a thing in secondary English-language literatute on theatre; and that is pretty striking for a supposedly notable theatre company, and its alleged notable founder and leader, isn't it: not a word. All info about Rockas and her company comes basically from some ordinary contemporary reviews in the press, recycled by Rockas in the net thru flickr etc. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve found some archived London newspaper reviews. Had plans to do more research today if there’s time before I have to leave for the Wiki Conference. Atsme✍🏻📧 09:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:17, 31 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 Volume. Although several votes were to keep, almost all of them were based on human opinion; therefore this will be redirected for the timebeing per WP:SYNTH and WP:LISTN. If you feel that there may be an issue, please see WP:DRV. (non-admin closure) FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude (volume)[edit]

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

Half of the stuff is unsourced and the article fails WP:LISTN.Synthesis of data. And, if someone do manage to find such trivial list(s) in high-school/undergrad science text-book (which often have them to provide an indicative idea of the vastness of the real range of a physical quantity), we are not one.We are an encyclopedia. ∯WBGconverse 05:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article is part of a set – see the following navigational template. It doesn't make sense to consider this in isolation when other members of the set have been extensively discussed and kept previously. For example, see RfC, AfD. Andrew D. (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 07:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This is a very comprehensive list, for a common quantity, and it is definitely notable. It also has a lot of images to explain what is written. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:11, 31 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. Doubts about verifiability remain, and nobody explicitly wants to keep this. Sandstein 09:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avanur Sreekanteswaram Temple[edit]

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

Unverifiable, no evidence of notability could be found. The sources added after the Prod don't seem to mention the temple (e.g. searching "A Handbook of Kerala, Volume 2"[19] for Avanoor, Avanur, or Sreekanteswaram, yielded no results; the first source is a census, not a source on temples. The coordinates in the article lead to another temple, the Vazhappally Sree Mahadeva Temple. Fram (talk) 09:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Necessary changes has been done.-- Rajesh Unuppally 12:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the 108 Shiva Temples are really a notable group, and if this is one of them, this may be notable, but there are still massive problems verifying this. The coordinates in the article still lead to Udayamperoor Ekadasi Perumthrikovil Temple, about a hundred miles from Avanur. The book source 108 Siva Kshetrangal appears to exist, but no page number for the information is given, nor is an ISBN or OCLC number which would help in tracking down a copy. Temples of Tṛśśoor̲ District again does not give page numbers. The book is only available in snippet view in gbooks, but searches for "Avanur", "Avanoor", or "Sreekanteswaram" do not seem to point to this exact temple. So please, let's have some accurate coords and refs before we decide to keep this. SpinningSpark 15:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there has been an article about this temple on the Malayalam WP since late 2010, created by the same editor (see here), gmaps shows the temple here, as for the coordinates being wrong they are now fixed:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate has corrected. Location of Temple. -- Rajesh Unuppally 15:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Temple is one the Shiva Temple in Thrissur District in Kerala. --RajeshUnuppally 15:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, it is a small temple - I had a look on gmaps. I'm not saying small can't be notable but there are a lot of small temples, just like there are a lot of small non notable churches, poor refs and google showing nothing i can see. Szzuk (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Boot Camp[edit]

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

Cannot find detailed coverage in reliable secondary sources Whizz40 (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per first nomination and this nomination, the company is not notable. It is not a pioneer, an innovator or an archetype and therefore there is no encyclopedic value in the article. The original version was highly promotional, which has now been edited back, but the article provides no information to the reader that is not or could not be provided on the company website because, as far as I can find, there is nothing more to write than that. Whizz40 (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As nominator it is fine to add an additional comment expanding on the nomination rationale, but a nom does not get to cast additional !votes. Sam Sailor 12:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, promo of a run of the mill boot camp. Szzuk (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Lashkar-e-Taiba. There was no keep movement in this AfD, and after 2 relists the consensus stays a redirect. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dawa wa Irshad[edit]

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

May meet WP:TERROR with considerable references, but it may not pass the WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of OrganizaJamat ud Dawations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:44, 31 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. Can be userfied (by somebody other than me) via WP:REFUND. No new sources have been added since the AfD started. Sandstein 09:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Jones (game designer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The only sources we have are a chapter the subject authored and a passing mention in his publisher's entry in the list of exhibitors for a book trade show. Google doesn't seem to be of much more help in finding sources, certainly nothing that would qualify as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if sources can be found, otherwise Userfy. I hadn't noticed the IP's request to AFD the article; I saw an AFD template on the article but no discussion, so I userfied it in order to work on it later. If that would be an acceptable compromise, this can go back to my userspace without needing to be deleted. BOZ (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BOZ: Assuming that sources aren't found over the course of the week, then, am I correct in understanding that you would support userfying the article rather than keeping it? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough. BOZ (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would be surprised if one could find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", but if you want search further, by all means do so. That being said, if there are not sources that meet those criteria, what would be the purpose of userfication? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's no deadline? I have come across many unsourced or barely sourced articles that have sat neglected for years and found sources for them. Many users are not patient enough to allow for that to happen, which is a shame, but I do what I can where I can. That's more than enough purpose; if you don't get where I'm coming from then I don't see a point in further discussing this. BOZ (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm just trying to understand – is there something about the subject that leads you to believe he might be notable more than, say, any obscure author selected at random from WorldCat (excluding those who have only published with vanity presses and the like)? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or move to user space if so desired. Based on existing sources, it seems like the subject has written content for some pen and paper RPG projects that are barely notable in themselves. signed, Rosguill talk 20:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Userify - I suspect that Jones meets WP:CREATIVE on the basis of the anthologies he has edited, if nothing else, but I am not prepared to find additional sources or fix the article at the moment. Userification would be appropriate. As far as the IP question is concerned, any "obscure author selected at random from WorldCat" will indeed meet NAUTHOR so long as their work has met with multiple critical comments. It isn't necessary to be "well-known" to be notable. Newimpartial (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP lacks WP:SIGCOV that would allow it to pass GNG. No criteria for inherent notability for game designers. Per our SOP, a high level of caution is to be used when userifying BLPs and the breadth of article and sourcing is so light that nothing meaningful will be lost by its deletion. Chetsford (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In case you hadn't noticed, Chetsford, the subject was an author and editor of fiction, so CREATIVE applies even if one were to grant your FRINGE view that CREATIVE does not somehow apply to game designers. Your !vote is therefore clearly not compliant with policy. Newimpartial (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You disagree that people who write and publish conventional fiction are covered by WP:CREATIVE?? What colour is the sky, then? Newimpartial (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Language Movement. There is a narrow consensus that the article shouldn't be kept at this time, thus is merged and redirected to Language Movement per WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) Flooded with them hundreds 19:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali language Movement (North Dinajpur)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS which state:--Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.All news coverage was restricted to around 10 days after the incident.

Post that, it died down to covering typical trivial-power-posturing of politicians including sending legal notices to one another and filing a case of defamation against another as to a comment made over the incident.

A month after, nil coverage is located. ∯WBGconverse 04:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 05:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per nomination; has had almost no sustained coverage post the initial outbursts of "anger" from politicians of all sorts of parties. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 09:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Winged Blades of Godric First of all there are many such instances of sustained coverage. I gave only a few examples. One can search and find many more. Second, local source (for that matter any source) is always acceptable as long as it is reliable. Third, even if a news report is about a political party's political motives, it does prove sustained coverage on the topic. BengaliHindu (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BengaliHindu, provide them. No, local sources are always assigned lesser weight. ∯WBGconverse 18:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposing WP:NOTNEWS: As per WP:NOTNEWS tag four points are needed to check and for that cases No. 3: “Who's who” and No. 4: “A diary” not applicable here. Anyways first two are also not relevant here because,

1. Original reporting - This is not original reporting, as this is already published by several reliable news providers in West Bengal, at all-India level and also in Bangladesh. Questioning on Times of India, Telegraph, Anandabazar Patrika is ridiculous.
2. Enduring notability - Leading Indian Newspaper covered the Derivit Case immediately and even after two weeks and more. Followed Links may help to ensure enduring notability. Sept 21 Sept 23 Sept 26 27 sept Oct 1 Oct 4 Oct 5 And many more. So enduring notability should not be questioned.
3. Who's who - Not applicable.
4. A Diary - Not applicable .
So WP:NOTNEWS tag should be removed. Thanks. শক্তিশেল (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • In last few comments pointed and given many resent links from leading news media and one of them covered last day. So enduring Notability is out of any questions. Once again pointing resent link from leading news media which covered yesterday. Covered by ABP on 23 oct 2018 . Thanks. শক্তিশেল (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above user (who is the creator of the article) has already extensively commented above.Closer, don't be confused by the different signature.∯WBGconverse 08:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sankardev Shishu/Vidya Niketan[edit]

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

These schools in Assam fail WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. A BEFORE search showed news articles but all were mere mentions. As-wiki shows articles on the subject but lack substantive Assamese sources from which we could translate. Most of the citations provided are ROUTINE coverage; some of these are entirely unsourced. I suspect there's also a promotional aspect to these articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sankardev Shishu Niketon Ghilamara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Sankardev Shishu Niketon Dhakuakhana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Shankardev Sishu Niketan, Sissiborgaon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of these institutions meet notability standards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Spiderone 13:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete took one look at the article and its references... that was enough for me to vote Delete. Add on the half dozen issues and the additional points made in the nom, this is a clear cut Delete. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 08:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramzan M. Miah[edit]

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

non notable actor. No major parts in films. In his only significant film, Ghost Story, he had a minor role only. Only editor bas been banned a part of a group ofsocks DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:29, 31 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. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Bowser[edit]

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

Unref blp; I couldn't establish that BOwser meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Passing mentions, which is what I see, are insufficient to meet WP:GNG and I don't see anything to convince me that he meets any SNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Ahmed Jovan[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I cannot find significant coverage of him in reliable sources. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not WP:NACTOR yet. Seems like a rising star and potentially we'd see an AfC in few years, but cannot find enough source to establish notability as of now. --nafSadh did say
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references in the article (I have not found anything from a coverage from secondary sources in my online search) are: a WP:ROUTINE source, two sites citing the biography and one is a blog, which is not a reliable source. Does not pass WP:GNG overall. WP:NACTOR is not satisfied too due to lack of multiple notable roles in notable movies or TV shows. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Chaos War. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 08:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

God Squad (comics)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Team appears nine times, according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The CBR article is barely enough to convince me not to go for an outright delete, but it seems too promotional to be enough for it's own article. List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations seems the best target. --Killer Moff (talk) 11:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chaos War. It's not a perfect fit since the team name was used prior to this miniseries, but this article contains information about the comic that was actually named "God Squad" Argento Surfer (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:24, 31 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 09:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

X-Cell[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Has had a "no sources" template since 2008, group only appears eight times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources found to support notability, and nothing the article within to suggest any. At best, a mention within each of the members, but even a re-direct would be foolish, as I don't see any mention of the team on the first page of google results, suggesting it's not the primary topic under this title. --Killer Moff (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)--Killer Moff (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of X-Men enemies, which provides a brief synopsis. A selective merge of real world details like publication dates might be helpful. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer deletion, but this makes the most sense to me as a target if the page is kept. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- no sources means there is no legitimate content to merge anywhere. Reyk YO! 09:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of coverage that would support independent notability. Aoba47 (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sattabut Laedeke[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Most roles appear to be supporting cast with only one lead role in 12-part TV drama and its sequel. Notability of that drama is not established. There are also issues with quality of sourcing and non-neutral language. Probably WP:TOOSOON. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's considerable mention of him in entertainment news, but most of it is the usual rehash of press releases promoting the series. A few profile pieces in celebrity websites, which are mostly just postings of his Instagram pictures. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just like Paul_012 has said, there is actually no significant coverage from secondary (so non primary promotional ones) sources to actually pass WP:GNG and due to lack of his notable roles he fails WP:NACTOR. He may be notable in future for WP:TOOSOON, but not now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Femizons. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ion (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Page is linked by one non-list non-disambiguation article, character appears nine times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge/Redirect - No secondary coverage in the entry, and I can find none in my own searches. Isingness (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Femizons per Argento Surfer. Sdmarathe (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Qadir Halepota[edit]

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

Unelected MP, and an interim cabinet minister. As discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Caretaker_cabinet_members, I don't think interim cabinet minister are something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia, unless pass GNG.

Subject also lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources and therefore does not appear to meet basic GNG as well.

A similar BLP was recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waleed Tariq Saigol. Saqib (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to his bio, he's a former judge of the High Court of Sindh. We keep articles on judges of high courts. He also served as a provincial minister in a non-caretaker government. Clear pass of WP:POLITICIAN on two counts, therefore. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp. Satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. James500 (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Trending towards keep, but with some quite superficial "keep" opinions, so I'm not comfortable with finding a consensus to keep. A merger discussion can still be had on the talk page. Sandstein 09:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Squad[edit]

Tiger Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

Full of dubious accusations of horrible crimes against living people, sourced entirely to one anonymous Saudi. Runs afoul of WP:BLP and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Also claims there are five members, fifty and six. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC) 17:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 18:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 18:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 18:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 18:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 18:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 18:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "REVEALED: The Saudi death squad MBS uses to silence dissent". Middle East Eye.
  2. ^ "Jamal Khashoggi's Murder: How A Death Squad Operates Under Saudi Crown Prince".
  3. ^ kitching, Chris (23 October 2018). "Jamal Khashoggi's severed fingers 'sent back to Saudi crown prince as trophy'".
  4. ^ "Jamal Khashoggi's tragic end is a wake-up call about the dangers faced by dissidents in exile: Opinion - CBC News".
  5. ^ "Jamal Khashoggi's body parts 'found in well at Saudi consul general's home in Istanbul'". 23 October 2018.
  6. ^ "Is Saudi Arabia safe in Mohammed bin Salman's hands?".
  7. ^ "15-member Saudi 'intel squad' sent to target WP's Khashoggi identified".
  8. ^ "Squad of assassins, missing video footage, vanished Saudi journalist all point to one simple fact".
  9. ^ "The Jamal Khashoggi Case: Suspects Had Ties to Saudi Crown Prince". Quote: "New York Times has confirmed independently that at least nine of 15 suspects identified by Turkish authorities worked for the Saudi security services, military or other government ministries. One of them, Maher Abdulaziz Mutreb, was a diplomat assigned to the Saudi Embassy in London in 2007, according to a British diplomatic roster. He traveled extensively with the crown prince, perhaps as a bodyguard.". New York Times. 16 October 2018. Retrieved 23 October 2018.
  10. ^ "Turkish police identify 5 suspects linked to Khashoggi murder: report". Daily Sabah. Retrieved 23 October 2018.
  11. ^ Video (23 October 2018). "Khashoggi Murder: 15-member squad that killed Khashoggi". WION News.
Except for the two Sabah stories (which say nothing about a "tiger squad" nor describe what our article does), these are all explicitly based on the same Middle East Eye story, which is based on the same anonymous Saudi, whose account the outlet admits it can't verify. Per EXCEPTIONAL, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." InedibleHulk (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The subject passes the notability threshold. if you have concerns about article content then AfD is not the place for that discussion.--DBigXrayᗙ 18:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The disputed bit here is the very existence of the subject. Cleaning it up would mean blanking the page. I've been told to propose articles for deletion instead of doing that, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See, the quote below, the New York Times has independently verified the identity of the squad members so we aren't really takling about just 1 source. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does anything in that story mention a fifty-member Tiger Squad which has tortured and killed multiple people at Salman's behest? Or does it just say nine of Khashoggi's particular fifteen had government jobs? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fifteen member team that visited Turkey was a subset of this 50 membered organisation. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to one anonymous guy. What you're trying to pull here is like me finding some dingbat who thinks the Canadian government is run by lizards, finding a credible source that confirms Trudeau heads the government and pretending this verifies Trudeau's the head lizard. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LoL Good luck, in getting that published in all these newspapers. The Significant coverage criteria is met just by these 2 sources alone [20][21] --DBigXrayᗙ 20:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the second one is clearly just relaying what the first one said. It's in plain English and attributed three times, twice in Bold Capitalized Hyperlink. Seven times, the reporter is abundantly cautious in emphasizing how these claims are from the lone mysterious source, not from the Outlook Web Bureau. How are you not seeing this? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with InedibleHulk. WP:EXCEPTIONAL says that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", also per WP:GNG "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." (So referencing Middle East Eye multiple times does not make the event more eligible to be in Wikipedia). As I suggest above, we should wait for top tier news organizations to see if they cover the matter. And to the point of DBigXray, as far as I know the NYT has only covered information regarding the killers of Koshaggi, and not made refernece to a larger killing squat going after multiple targets. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 6:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Definite Keep I second DBigXray that the subject has enough coverage to mandate an article. We are not going to censor Wikipedia! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, we're going to slander up to fifty named people, based on the say-so of one shadowy figure. Or if the unsubstantiated mudslinging later turns out to be true, we're going to be tortured and murdered by the Tiger Squad for "exposing" them. All because a few bad apples think we're a social justice firm or detective agency that doesn't need independent secondary coverage for things to seem verifiable. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do not worry about us, at least you will survive as you are inedible and trying your best to get it deleted, you are in good books! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Hulk has nothing to worry about. It is clear to me that some of the folks on this AfD have incorrect understanding of WP:INDEPENDENT actually means, And I would request them to read the page WP:Identifying and using independent sources once again. if All these reliable newspapers are reporting this, then we include the same information. It is the reliable newspapers job to do the Research and publish it not wiki editors to do that. If New York Times, Washington Post, Outlook, Middle East Eye etc finds the news credible enough to be published, then we mention it in our articles.--DBigXrayᗙ 09:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This subject has got a lot of coverage in the News recently and something that has a vague name like Tiger🐅 squad really needs to have an article for those who want to get information about it.SharabSalam (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even tiger blood doesn't get an article for sounding neat, and millions of people know the self-proclaimed warlock who popularized that stupid theory. An actual tiger expert took the time to analyze and debunk it, among mountains of other secondary coverage. If we don't lower the bar for pop culture phenomena from A-list actors, we shouldn't lower it for hysterical slander some guy on the Internet came out with one day. Should be deleted and revisited when and if it's ever verified. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep: There is more than enough corroborated evidence to substantiate the article, and the primary sourced which broke the story is itself a credible news outlet. Further information and sources are highly expected the be produced in the near future. LissanX (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Highly expected by whom? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From everyone that has been following the constant flow of new revelations arising from the aftermath of the Jamal Khashoggi murder. The same outlet has already been among the first to report information that it took about seven minutes to carry out; that forensic specialist Salah Muhammed al-Tubaigy cut Khashoggi's body into pieces while Khashoggi was still alive, as he and his colleagues listened to music[1]; the role of Ahmad Asiri's in the death (who was later fired)[2]; that seven of the fifteen murder suspects are Mohammed bin Salman's bodyguards[3]; and now the existence of the Tiger Squad,[4] which is itself already largely substantiated by previous reports from other outlets.[5][6] LissanX (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is any of that quick information true yet? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is any of it true or is any of it acknowledged by the accused murderers themselves? Are you proposing we delete the entire killing of Jamal Khashoggi article and replace it with "He died in a fist fight" because that’s all that’s "true"? LissanX (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of that article is sourced to multiple identified people, or anonymous people said to work for known police and government agencies. It easily passes GNG, and this page is crystal clear about which article I'm proposing for deletion. The main article's Talk Page has a section where I'm also clear about why I think "fist fight" is untrue, why I scrubbed that term and why other editors should continue to leave it out. Is any of your quick info acknowledged as true by identified people or anonymous people said to work for authoritative investigatory agencies? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Jamal Khashoggi's killing took seven minutes, Turkish source tells MEE". Middle East Eye. Retrieved 16 October 2018.
  2. ^ "Trump demands answers as scepticism grows over Khashoggi death account". Middle East Eye. Retrieved 21 October 2018.
  3. ^ "EXCLUSIVE: Seven of bin Salman's bodyguards among Khashoggi suspects", Middle East Eye (17 October 2018).
  4. ^ "REVEALED: The Saudi death squad MBS uses to silence dissent". Retrieved 23 October 2018.
  5. ^ "Saudi dissidents fear 'long arm' of state after Khashoggi murder". Yahoo News. Retrieved 22 October 2018.
  6. ^ "Riyadh tried to 'trap' us in overseas embassies: Saudi dissidents". PressTV. Retrieved 22 October 2018.
  • Delete or Merge: sounds to me like a small entity mentioned by the Middle East Eye on news coverage for Jamal Khashoggi's killing and does not warrant a whole article about it. It is noteworthy to mention it in the article regarding Jamal Khashoggi's killing, but why create a whole article about it sourcing one unproven and nameless source? Unless multiple RS exist of such a squad with the name I don't believe it is noteworthy of its own article. Most sources used on the article are about dissdents allegedly removed by a Saudi premediated killing such as Jamal Khashoggi's and makes no mention of a "Tiger" squad yet the incidents are cited in the article as members of the so called "Tiger" squad. It's a confusing article and provides undue weight. Wikiemirati (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Most sources used on the article...make no mention of a 'Tiger' squad." What article are you reading? The first of 17 sources from Outlook India has, as the very first line of the article, "The Firqat el-Nemr, or Tiger Squad was formed over a year ago and comprises of 50 of the skilled intelligence and military operatives in the kingdom." The second source from the Mirror writes "Mr Khashoggi, 59, was tortured and murdered by a hit squad, known as the Firqat el-Nemr, or Tiger Squad." The third source from the CBC writes "The Firqat el-Nemr or "tiger squad" — a hit team of Saudi agents — is believed to be behind the savage murder of Khashoggi in Istanbul." The fourth source from The Nation says "Mr Khashoggi, 59, was tortured and murdered by a hit squad, known as the Firqat el-Nemr, or Tiger Squad." The fifth source from another article on the Mirror says "Mr Khashoggi, 59, was killed by a hit squad, known as the Firqat el-Nemr, or Tiger Squad." The sixth and seventh are both the main article from the Middle East Eye. The rest of the sources are about various aspects of the article which corroborate the the first seven sources. The existence of a "small entity" which works directly for the leadership of a major country tasked with murdering journalists in Western countries is more than noteworthy. It's also relevant to others than Jamal Khashoggi, and the scope of this entity can’t be constricted to the death of Jamal Khashoggi article alone. LissanX (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like most of those sources you took the effort to quote here are mirrors the Middle East Eye source. Provide me a global leak, a US or Turkish intelligence report, or at least a named official calling it The "Tiger squad" and it will stand credible to me as entity. WP:RS. Wikiemirati (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in the other thread, Al Jazeera, Al-Alam and France 24 are all state news outlets and lend credibility to the Middle East Eye, which was itself a reliable source to begin with. The Washington Post also has reported the same with no mention of the Middle East Eye, writing "The U.S. government learned last month that Assiri was planning to create a “tiger team” to conduct covert special operations, I’m told". The CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking was first sourced by the San Jose Mercury News, a small news outlet not anywhere near the size of the Middle East Eye. The Snowden leaks were also revealed the same way as the Tiger Squad revelations. Al Jazeera, Al-Alam, Sama News, France 24, etc. LissanX (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The WP mentions the team in regards to Khashoggi's killing. Heck, it states "Assiri was planning to create", hence no attribution that squad already exists and has performed many operations already. We can create an article regarding the "Tiger squad" once more "multiple high-quality sources" exist. as per WP:EXCEPTIONAL "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". As of now, I don't see any "high quality sources" exist apart of the Middle East Eye, and the multiple other sources which cite it in its news. I'm not denying the existence of such a squad, I wouldn't know or care. I'm calling it not notable enough to warrant its own article. Wikiemirati (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, clear contradiction of the alleged creation date and the alleged creator isn't "lending credibility" to this story, by any stretch of imagination. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I am not extremely familiar with these sources, which does not mean that they may not be valid... But it makes me wonder, have top-tier publications like the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Financial Times... mentioned the term "Tiger squard"? Here is a quick analysis of some of the sources listed:
  1. The 1st one is the original source that reported the story, as I gather from the discussion above. Wikipedia says of theMiddle East Eye that it is funded by Qatar, an antagonist of Saudi Arabia. That does not mean that the story is wrong, but that more corroboration is needed, and that one source can't be trusted.
  2. The 2nd source, Outlook India, there is no wiki article about it, which makes me wonder how prominent of a source it is.
  3. The 3rd source, in the Mirror, which is described in Wikipedia as being a Tabloid, making its reliability really questionable
  4. The 4th source (CBC), is actually an opinion piece, which can have some weight, but less than if it was an actual news piece.
  5. And since I don't have the time now to check every source, I will skip to the 9th one, which stood out to me, as it is the NYT (finally, a top-tier source I can recognize), but :I don't see in it being mentioned anything about a larger killing squad, out of which the 15 operatives involved are only a subset, and that such larger squat has made multiple assassination attempts on dissidents, which is what this article is about.
Don't take me wrong, these assertions may end up being corroborated, and sadly there is a chance of them indeed being true. However, at this point I am doubtful that these claims from these sources can constitute an encyclopedic article. Respectfully, (talk) user:Al83tito 6:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@Al83tito: see below my comment. --Saqib (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Washington Post noted "The U.S. government learned last month that Assiri was planning to create a tiger team to conduct covert special operations." Pass GNG. --Saqib (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also Keep on the basis there are plenty of coverage in Arabic sources. [22] --Saqib (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good work Saqib, Since Arabic is the language of the peninsula where this squad is active, it is quite expected that we will have good Arabic sources as well. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In a quick glance, its noteworthy to mention that most of the Arabic sources are from small time newspapers or online journals, and blog posts. Less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact as per WP:RS. Not even Al Jazeera, Saudi's Arabia worst critic in Arabic, mentioned a "Tiger squad". There's no fact checking here and the article regardign a "tiger squad" was deleted in Arabic Wikipedia for lack of reliable evidence. Wikiemirati (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations of bias of the source require more evidence than just "they aren’t friends with the Saudis". To Saqib and DBigXray's point, there are numerous online sources in Arabic, including one from Al Jazeera, Al-Alam, Sama News, France 24, etc. LissanX (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone of those sources mentions "Middle East Eye" as the primary source. According to WP:RS "Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source." Again, where did I claim that those sources are biased? I am only quoting WP:RS "Less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact". Regards. Wikiemirati (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Al Jazeera, Al-Alam and France 24 are all state news outlets and lend credibility to the Middle East Eye, which was itself a reliable source to begin with. The Washington Post also has reported the same with no mention of the Middle East Eye, writing "The U.S. government learned last month that Assiri was planning to create a “tiger team” to conduct covert special operations, I’m told". The CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking was first sourced by the San Jose Mercury News, a small news outlet not anywhere near the size of the Middle East Eye. The Snowden leaks were also revealed the same way as the Tiger Squad revelations. LissanX (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a columnist (not a reporter) relaying hearsay that Assiri (not the prince) was planning to create (not had created) a "tiger team" (not "tiger squad") in September 2018 (not 2017) for covert special operations (not murdering its critics) is not even close to "reporting the same", unless you ignore the who, why, what, where, when and how aspects. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Killing of Jamal Khashoggi - not independently notable - all the coverage this alleged hit squad has received is in the context of Khashoggi (try searching in English or Arabic excluding -Khashoggi). My WP:BALL says it will probably be renamed/reorganized following the fallout - but regardless - as long as the coverage of this alleged small unit is in the context of a single event - it should be at the event (HITSQUAD1E). Icewhiz (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me be clear that this is not the first or the only high profile killing from this Squad, so arguments of 1E are not applicable here. The very existence of other high profile killings from this squad makes it inappropriate for a merge. The subject has significant coverage needed to have a stand alone article. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, this group is allegedly responsible for the assassinations of Saudi princes, judges, and attempts on other journalists and activists. This is not limoted to Jamal Khashoggi. This is similar to the Chain murders of Iran. LissanX (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Granted, however Icewhiz point is about wikipedia notability regardless if such squad exists or not. It is notable to mention in regards to Jamal Khashoggi's killing. However, for it to be a separate article it should fulfill Wikipedia:Notability and needs multiple third party sources, not just a single source mentioning an unnamed official imo. Wikiemirati (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a stub article with two independent sources (MEE + Ignatius/The Washington Post). Death squads are part of the real world, whether they are called that or rather by euphemisms such as covert operation teams. United States Navy SEALs refers to many living individuals. Whether they are involved in defending democracy and human rights or rather assassins who defend US economic and geopolitical interests is for the reader to interpret; whether members of the Tiger Squad are defending Saudi society against the risks of a Syria civil war scenario or are assassins preserving a mediaeval culture is for the reader to interpret; whether they are members of a coverts operations group is something that we should be able to report based on RSs, with appropriate NPOVing. Asiri is referred to by both main sources. How many of the others can be referred to, or in what language, is obviously a WP:BLP matter. Repeating this argument in slightly more detail: being a member of a death squad, covert operation teams, or any military organisation, which may or may not carry out war crimes, does not imply responsibility of that individual for a national-level-criminal-law crime or a war crime. The US death squad training school (SOA) Wikipedia entry includes links to at least a few apparently living people such as Richard Downie and Colonel Robert F. Alvaro. Should their names be removed under WP:BLP? Articles of death squads (typically with SOA training) such as Atlacatl Battalion, Argentine Anticommunist Alliance, Caravan of Death, Batallón de Inteligencia 601 concern death squads mostly active in the 1970's and 80's, and Battalion 3-16 (Honduras) is for a death squad apparently revived in the 2000's. There are lots of named death squad members in these, and many are likely to be still alive, even if not so young. Obviously WP:BLP care is needed in this article - some of the edits have separated claims of facts from citations, but that requires editing work, not deletion. Should we delete List of United States Navy SEALs which, depending on your interpretation, effectively accuses the listed people (many presumably alive) of "horrible crimes" in the same sense as this proposed deletion? Boud (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example where Wikipedia states the names of alleged members of, or people responsible for, covert operation/death squads (thanks LissanX): Chain_murders_of_Iran#Investigations. Boud (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: At present, sources are not sufficient/reliable enough. Also please consider WP:BLP, esp. "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." and Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. WikiHannibal (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is a serious issue,  WikiHannibal please point out which persons mention here is a BLP violation and I am willing to remove that right away. How ever I am not willing to agree to attempts to WP:Censor facts that have been widely covered by reliable international media simply with an excuse of WP:BLP --DBigXrayᗙ 17:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems all mentions of the persons in the article violate WP:BLP. Regarding WP:Censor, it deals with facts, and that is something that is not established (following wiki rules) in the article. WikiHannibal (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your concerns may be unfounded or valid but AfD is not the venue for that discussion. Start a thread on its talk page. We are here to discuss the notability of the topic. --DBigXrayᗙ 00:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean, you asked for explanation ("please point out which persons mention here is a BLP violation") so I responded. If you wanted a new thread, you should have been more specific, or create one yourself? You may move all of this discussion, except for my Delete comment+explanation, there if you wish. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try and explain once again, WikiHannibal This is AFD not BLP Noticeboard. Dont mix the two. I am asking you to make your arguments for or against the notability of this article. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]
OK, I see your point. As I stated, I have my doubts about the sources; the BLP was an appendix to that. And since you asked about the BLP part of my comment, I responed..) BTW, BLP is mentioned in the nomination at the very top. Anyway, WP:DELETE is not just about notability, per WP:DEL-REASON, BLP issues are a valid reason. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WikiHannibal, What is exactly your doubt on the sources ? Are these newspapers not reliable or independent enough for you ? Point the exact problem here. (regarding BLP if you feel some one has wrongly been added, start a discussion on talk page, not an AfD)--DBigXrayᗙ 14:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Page views do not establish notability and are not taken into consideration in Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. High page views may stem from the fact that this article is linked from the main article in Killing of Jamal Khashoggi which almost already covers the same content in this article. Wikiemirati (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I never said this is the only criteria to keep, this just supports the notability claims. No, Killing of Jamal Khashoggi, clearly does not contain all the same content. If 22,000+ people want to read this article, then there has to be very strong reasons to delete and deny them this information. --DBigXrayᗙ 01:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may create Israel army sharks as an article and support it with million verified sources from middle eastern news on how Israel trained sharks to kill Egyptians and it will probably gain millions of views but notability of such subject will not be passed. That event has multiple verifiable sources compared to this "squad". Point is, once multiple high quality exceptional sources exist you may create an exceptional article WP:EXCEPTIONAL Wikiemirati (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can create anything, the only problem you will find is reliable newspapers will not be publishing any nonsense that risks their credibility. So your newly created article will still end up CSDed for lack of reliable source as refs. Hope you understand the problem with your example. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No you may not as per Wikipedia:Notability. If thats your reasoning, then I can create all the fringe theories deleted from wikipedia. You will be surprised with the amount of nonsense published by newspapers. Most news don't care about credibility, they care about their impact factor and viewers views, which is why journalists love covering controversy. Regardless I'm not here to argue the reliability of Middle East Eye. This topic also lacks multiple reliable sources (only 2 I counted so far), which is even way less than the news that was reported in the example I stated. With your reasoning, it should be deleted or merged then (for the lack of reliable sources). Wikiemirati (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Killing of Jamal Khashoggi; I don't see any coverage unrelated to that event, and the sourcing other than Middle East Eye is largely trivial (that the group of killers might be known as the tiger team). power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect to a better named article. As a previous editor said "Death squads are part of the real world..." and probably deserve an article; does one already exist under another name??? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ariconte this is the only article for this particular Saudi death squad and the above is the commonly used English title for it. It does have an arabic name and some soutces also call it Tiger group --DBigXrayᗙ 01:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course death squads exist in the wild. So do penises and tigers. But that doesn't mean any nameless person can start a lurid online rumour about a celebrity's personal death squad and expect it to appear both real and notable on Wikipedia, anymore than Lady Gaga's penis deserves a standalone article full of uncorrobarated scandalous adventures throughout Parts Unknown (it's very famous). Her own BLP doesn't even mention the little guy's purported existence, and neither should Mohammad bin Salman's mention his invisible tiger boys. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia requires us to use reliable source WP:RS. This policiy nowhere states that a "reliable source that is using an anonymous trusted source" cannot be used as a valid reference. The reason why this anonymous person cant publish his name is obvious, he will be the next victim of this squad if he published his name. It does not mean these newspapers dont know his name,they just agreed to not publish his name. All these internationally renowned newspapers are putting their own credibility on line while publishing this article, so obviously they have their own checks and balances to make sure nonsense doesn't get published in the name of anonymous source. The very fact that these reliable newspapers around the world have published this is good enough for Wikipedia. You shouldn't be expecting an official statement in such cases. --DBigXrayᗙ 01:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there are no "these newspapers". The Middle East Eye exclusively talked to him, and every other outlet just covered the existence of that story, not the substance of it. By attributing all claims to this exclusive, they don't risk their own credibility in the slightest (because the story really was published), and did no original research beyond finding the story online and recapping it to catch clicks (exactly like Wikipedians do). If you won't trust me on this, try to find another source that claims to have met him. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with InedibleHulk. Only one news outlet mentioned the "anonymous trusted source" and another which slightly hinted the possible existence of such squad. If more details regarding the existence of this squad emerge you're welcome to start a whole encyclopedia about it but so far, in my opinion, the current information can be incorporated and merged into Killing of Jamal Khashoggi article, the main subject in which this mysterious organization existence was talked about. Wikiemirati (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post David Ignatius article is independent of the Middle East Eye source; it talks about a tiger team, which is not a significantly different name to tiger squad, given that these are both English translations from the original Arabic; and it uses the term "covert special operations" team rather than "death squad", but these terms have a very strong overlap in meaning - teams of agents that do secret operations that frequently include assassinations that would be politically embarrassing (and legally risky, under local law where the events occur and possibly under international law such as the Geneva Conventions) if the agents were caught. This is not just my understanding of English, it's also a Guardian columnist's understanding of Ignatius' English - 'a "tiger team" to conduct covert special operations, which sounds a lot like a death squad charged with hunting down anyone unlucky enough to find themselves on Bin Salman's enemies list.' Boud (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ignatius talks of a different team which hadn't yet been (and might still not be) assembled when this article's team is purported to have already killed for a different leader. Assuming covert operations must mean clandestine killing is as foolish as assuming overt operations must mean public killing. Many teams work on many things for many heads under cover of state secrecy, from forced disappearance to data processing and every task in between. Even if Freedland/Bourne's hunch about the other later team is correct, that would only score a point toward keeping another later article. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A Possibility for a 'better named article' or at least one to consider the relationship of: Extrajudicial killing. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (changing form merge to keep) Listening to a an in-depth BBC report on this on this squad of Saudi government hit-men. Don't have the URL, but it is enough to make me change my iVote becasue it is now very clear to me that this secret Saudi squad of hit-men has been operating for some time, and is notable beyond Kashoggi killing. I continue to urge move to something like Tiger Squad (Saudi operatives), Tiger Squad (Firqat el-Nemr).E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment yes, as E.M.Gregory rightly said above [1] BBChas also published about this subject and BBC has referred to its own Saudi source. So clearly the arguments of lack of sources are invalid now. Enough reliable sources independent of each other have been presented for the article to be kept. Regarding the rename EMG, you are welcome to start a thread for rename discussion on the talk page, personally I believe as per WP:COMMONNAME and wP:SMALLDETAILS dicatate that this article title is better. but anyway AfD is not the place to discuss the appropriate article title. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jamal Khashoggi: What more can we learn from his death? - BBC Newsnight
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. It looks like there just isn't enough in the way of sources. Sandstein 09:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Patrick Burke[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. Provided sources do not demonstrate notability per WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC. The subject is the founder and president of The Wynnewood Institute, which doesn't appear to be a notable enough research institution to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC. Internet searches for more coverage about the subject in reliable sources were unsuccessful, and specifically searching Google Scholar and ResearchGate for both the subject and their works did not leave me with the impression that the subject is widely cited or otherwise had a significant impact in their field. That having been said, search engines can be finicky about finding evidence of citations, so I would welcome any evidence that demonstrates that Burke has had a wide impact or otherwise meets WP:NACADEMIC. signed, Rosguill talk 20:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will make a case for stronger claim to notability. To start: 1. There are more citations in academic journals as well as reviews of his books. How many citations or mentions of the subject's work would be considered notable? Should I provide the citations here or elsewhere? 2. He wrote a religious text titled The Major Religions that is widely held/used. Does that factor in to the criteria at all? *Please note that I created the article as a work for hire. Thank you.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Burke, T. P. (2004). The major religions: An introduction with texts. Wiley-Blackwell. This textbook would seem to be a compilation more than an original work. Google scholar says it has been cited 79 times, but this could be for the "texts" rather than for Burke's work?? MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can make edits to the article and then just summarize your additions here. As far as what "counts", I'd read through WP:NACADEMIC–the textbook is certainly a point in Burke's favor, although I wasn't able to quickly find any sources that verified that it is particularly widely used. signed, Rosguill talk 00:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It is held at over 500 libraries, and meant for textbook use, though I do not know where to retrieve stats on assigned reading.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the author of the article, User:DiamondRemley39, states that he was hired to produce the article, he should indicate who hired him. MargaretRDonald (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I interpreted something I'd read to mean that disclosing I am paid to edit on my userpage suffices. Apparently not, and I apologize for not following the procedure properly. I was hired by a company, Syndicate Strategies, to write the article.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, (for the indication that an advertising company is paying you. I didn't manage to read your userpage at the time) If this article is not to be deleted: some ISBNs for the books or links to show that they actually exist would be good; some articles and some evidence that people are using the his work; The sentence about his importance in propagation of ideas is not supported (organising a conference does not mean that someone was/is instrumental in propagating ideas); many lecturers write textbooks, so some evidence that his is widely used. As yet, there is no evidence that Burke is noteworthy. MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC) (I see his textbook is used as a reference at least in some 448 libraries). MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. OCLC links to most of his books were included, and I have now added the ISBNs (for those that were published after 1970).--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A useful source to flesh out the article & support a keep argument might be OCLC World cat: Burke, T. Patrick (Thomas Patrick) 1934- MargaretRDonald (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Apart from Burke/s publications, this article is based on a single source (The Wynnewood Institute webpage). If the man was/is influential surely his work is discussed in newspapers. Equally, he was professor of religion at Temple college for nearly 30 years,so if he was "influential" he surely had some students who were both influenced by him and who are influential. Who are they and what did they write about? You have told us he was influential, show us! (Without considerable improvement with secondary referencing I think the article should be deleted, being based on insufficient sources). So far it is a simple paraphrase of the material on the The Wynnewood Institute webpages, and hence, essentially, advertising. MargaretRDonald (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will gather more reviews of his works and links to articles he has written. I hadn't realized that reviews of his books in academic journals would be valuable to the article. Is there a deadline?DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep He appears to be sufficiently notable. See e.g., his library IDs in the authority control, as well as his books (frequently written with others). MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC) one iVote per editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MargaretRDonald: could you please clarify your !vote? You've bolded a !vote in three different comments, and it looks like another editor has redacted your latest, so it would be helpful to strike the !votes you don't endorse, and clarify your current position. Bakazaka (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My previous comments were not votes, but (conflicting) arguments for both keep and delete. He is certainly not an influential thinker, but I think his widespread availablity in libraries does make him notable.MargaretRDonald (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified my earlier "votes" by unbolding the keep and delete in the earlier comments, rather than striking out. (Thye were not votes and therefore did not need to be struck out) MargaretRDonald (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many, actually, most academics fail guidelines like WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR because, as you say, "not an influential thinker." The only way to pass those guidelines or WP:GNG is to have multiple SECONDARY and TERTIRAY WP:RS that discuss your career, your ideas, your books and/or your impact. Many academics have useful, honourable careers without being notable. The mere fact of publishing books and articles does not confer notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote.Delete. MargaretRDonald (talk) 03:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He certainly sounds like he ought to be notable - books, Institute, but I can't source him. No problem finding others with this name (Ensign Thomas Patrick Burke, of the 16th Regiment) a Napoleonic era soldier ; and the Thomas Patrick Burke who committed a notorious kidnap/murder (O'CONNELL KIDNAPPER DIES: Washington Reveals Passing of Burke in Pennsylvania Prison, New York Times (1923-Current file); New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]21 Dec 1937: 48.). I considered a merge to The Wynnewood Institute, but it doesn't look notable either. ( I did find a handful of events listings for lectures back in2007.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that two editors have been hard at work tightening the page, I took another look. the page still lacks so much as a single reliable, secondary source. And yet he had a long university teaching career and wrote books. I took his name to JSTOR and found a very respectful review of a recent book in a respectable journal (Shuster, Arthur, and Thomas Patrick Burke. “The Journal of Politics.” The Journal of Politics, vol. 74, no. 1, 2012, p. e9. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1017/s0022381611001472.) it is, however, the sole book review I was able to locate. One book review ≠ notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after having similar search results to E.M.Gregory. There is no question that the subject wrote and edited things. But notability on Wikipedia is not based on output. Notability here is based on significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources (see WP:GNG), which this subject does not have, or on passing a more specific notability guideline like WP:PROF, which this subject most assuredly does not. Bakazaka (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted WP:CSD#A7-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jha Classes[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this class, one of thousands of such classes (this article discusses the number of such classes, but not this specific one). The book by the teacher exists, but doesn't seem to have received significant attention either, and no other evidence that this specific class is notable could be found. Fram (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Though the current article doesn't say so, earlier versions of it made it clear this is not just a class but a business, a scholastic coaching operation, which is also plain from the business's website. With no indication of significance, it qualifies for A7 deletion. I've tagged it as such. Largoplazo (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedily deleted per A7 What with the Amazon links, it looked G11ish as well.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:21, 31 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 Specific energy. Although several votes were to keep, almost all of them were based on opinion; therefore this will be redirected for the timebeing per WP:SYNTH and WP:LISTN. If you feel that there may be an issue, please see WP:DRV. (non-admin closure) FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude (specific energy)[edit]

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

Half of the stuff is unsourced and the article fails WP:LISTN.Synthesis of data. And, if someone do manage to find such trivial list(s) in high-school/undergrad science text-book (which often have them to provide an indicative idea of the vastness of the real range of a physical quantity), we are not one.We are an encyclopedia. ∯WBGconverse 06:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article is part of a set – see the following navigational template. It doesn't make sense to consider this in isolation when other members of the set have been extensively discussed and kept previously. For example, see RfC, AfD. Andrew D. (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide multiple sources that covers the topic of order of magnitude of specific energy (not range of voltage) in a significant manner. The best, that I managed to get my hands upon were stuff like this which hardly does the job.∯WBGconverse 19:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 07:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:21, 31 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 Electrical resistance and conductance. Although several votes were to keep, almost all of them were based on opinion; therefore this will be redirected for the timebeing per WP:SYNTH and WP:LISTN. If you feel that there may be an issue, please see WP:DRV. (non-admin closure) FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude (resistance)[edit]

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

Half of the stuff is unsourced and another quarter unreliably sourced. The article fails WP:LISTN and is synthesis of data. And, if someone do manage to find such trivial list(s) in high-school/undergrad science text-book (which often have them to provide an indicative idea of the vastness of the real range of a physical quantity), we are not one.We are an encyclopedia. ∯WBGconverse 06:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article is part of a set – see the following navigational template. It doesn't make sense to consider this in isolation when other members of the set have been extensively discussed and kept previously. For example, see RfC, AfD. Andrew D. (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 07:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:19, 31 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 Molar concentration. Although several votes were to keep, almost all of them were based on opinion; therefore this will be redirected for the timebeing per WP:SYNTH and WP:LISTN. If you feel that there may be an issue, please see WP:DRV. (non-admin closure) FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude (molar concentration)[edit]

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

An umsourced article that fails WP:LISTN and is comprised of noble-synthesis of data. And, if someone do manage to find such trivial list(s) in high-school/undergrad science text-book (which often have them to provide an indicative idea of the vastness of the real range of a physical quantity), we are not one.We are an encyclopedia. ∯WBGconverse 06:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article is part of a set – see the following navigational template. It doesn't make sense to consider this in isolation when other members of the set have been extensively discussed and kept previously. For example, see RfC, AfD. Andrew D. (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide multiple sources that covers the topic of order of magnitude of molar concentration (not range of voltage) in a significant manner. ∯WBGconverse 19:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 07:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:16, 31 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 Inductance. Although several votes were to keep, almost all of them were based on opinion; therefore this will be redirected for the timebeing per WP:SYNTH and WP:LISTN. If you feel that there may be an issue, please see WP:DRV. (non-admin closure) FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude (inductance)[edit]

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

An unreliably-sourced article that fails WP:LISTN and is comprised of noble-synthesis of data. And, if someone do manage to find such trivial list(s) in high-school/undergrad science text-book (which often have them to provide an indicative idea of the vastness of the real range of a physical quantity), we are not one.We are an encyclopedia. ∯WBGconverse 06:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article is part of a set – see the following navigational template. It doesn't make sense to consider this in isolation when other members of the set have been extensively discussed and kept previously. For example, see RfC, AfD. Andrew D. (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide multiple sources that covers the topic of order of magnitude of inductance (not range of voltage) in a significant manner. ∯WBGconverse 19:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 07:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article provides useful comparisons for inductance. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:14, 31 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 Lumen (unit). Although several votes were to keep, almost all of them were based on opinion; therefore this will be redirected for the timebeing per WP:SYNTH and WP:LISTN. If you feel that there may be an issue, please see WP:DRV. (non-admin closure) FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude (luminous flux)[edit]

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

An unreliably-sourced article that fails WP:LISTN and is comprised of noble-synthesis of data. And, if someone do manage to find such trivial list(s) in high-school/undergrad science text-book (which often have them to provide an indicative idea of the vastness of the real range of a physical quantity), we are not one.We are an encyclopedia. ∯WBGconverse 06:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article is part of a set – see the following navigational template. It doesn't make sense to consider this in isolation when other members of the set have been extensively discussed and kept previously. For example, see RfC, AfD. Andrew D. (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On the contrary, it makes very good sense to consider these separately. Any AfD for the whole lot would never succeed, because among the fluff there is bound to be something which the "Rescue Squad" could turn into an argument. What is the point of adding this comment to a number of these AfD discussions? Do you think this "article" is useful or not? Imaginatorium (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide multiple sources that covers the topic of order of magnitude of luminous flux (not range of voltage) in a significant manner. ∯WBGconverse 19:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is just a list; is it encyclopaedically useful? I think not: "order of magnitude" lists for length or mass help readers put units in context with familiar objects (grains of sand, stars, etc). But this list has essentially nothing with any psychological reality: knowing that a quasar is equivalent to 10^43 fireflies is not an illuminating (sorry) comparison. And about 40% of the list is just various sizes of lightbulb. I think that a much shorter list (perhaps including fireflies and quasars) would be useful in the context of an article on luminance, but a separate list is not justified. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 07:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article provides useful comparisons for luminous flux. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:13, 31 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 Density. Although several votes were to keep, almost all of them were based on opinion; therefore this will be redirected for the timebeing per WP:SYNTH and WP:LISTN. If you feel that there may be an issue, please see WP:DRV. (non-admin closure) FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude (density)[edit]

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

An unsourced article that fails WP:LISTN and is comprised of noble-synthesis of data. And, if someone do manage to find such trivial list(s) in high-school/undergrad science text-book (which often have them to provide an indicative idea of the vastness of the real range of a physical quantity), we are not one.We are an encyclopedia. ∯WBGconverse 06:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article is part of a set – see the following navigational template. It doesn't make sense to consider this in isolation when other members of the set have been extensively discussed and kept previously. For example, see RfC, AfD. Andrew D. (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 07:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a comprehensive list with the a lot of information, and it gives the reader an idea of how much quantities such as 1 kg/m^3, 1 kg/m^3, etc., are. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Density which already has tables along these lines that are more than sufficient. --Steve (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Angular velocity. Although several votes were to keep, almost all of them were based on opinion; therefore this will be redirected for the timebeing per WP:SYNTH and WP:LISTN. If you feel that there may be an issue, please see WP:DRV. (non-admin closure) FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude (angular velocity)[edit]

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

A majorly unsourced article that fails WP:LISTN and is comprised of noble-synthesis of data. And, if someone do manage to find such trivial list(s) in high-school/undergrad science text-book (which often have them to provide an indicative idea of the vastness of the real range of a physical quantity), we are not one.We are an encyclopedia. ∯WBGconverse 06:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article is part of a set – see the following navigational template. It doesn't make sense to consider this in isolation when other members of the set have been extensively discussed and kept previously. For example, see RfC, AfD. Also, it doesn't seem fair to be nominating this article for deletion as a reprisal for an editor's !vote at RfA – see WP:HOUND. Andrew D. (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 07:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a comprehensive list with a lot of information. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:09, 31 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. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PhotoSpring[edit]

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

I do not believe this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the startup company. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are basically press releases. I was surprised that you had accepted this article at AfC without the substantial independent, reliable sources needed to demonstrate notability. The creator may deny having a CoI, but the only thing he has done in his total of eight contributions to Wikipedia since he joined in July is to write this article and to introduce and link the company name into the article on Digital photo frames. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These all have bylines by independent writers and so are not clearly press releases. SPA or suspected COI is not a reason to delete or reject an AFC submission. The article is very stubby and so has no WP:NPOV issue. ~Kvng (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:NCORP, any material which is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources fails the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 14:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite the press release(s) these articles are based on or are you making these assertions based on smell? ~Kvng (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 07:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages or a substitute for a corporate website. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The onles listed by Kvng above fail since the eweek reference is a review of the product written exactly like an advertisement and contains no information on the company, failing WP:CORPDEPTH, the fastcompany reference is a mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and the ZDNet reference appears to also be a review of the product and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Perhaps the product is notable and the article can be renamed/reworked in that direction, but the company on notability. HighKing++ 17:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should always consider alternatives to deletion if we believe the product is notable, we should keep the article and let it be reworked. This is preferable to having to start over from scratch, is it not? ~Kvng (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't about the product though, it is about the company which fails the criteria for notability. If someone wants to create a new article based on the product they are free to do so but I don't see much in this article that could be considered a "reworking". HighKing++ 14:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it could be WP:MOVEed and reworked to focus on the product and, if we want an article about the product, that's a preferred path compared to deleting this and starting again from scratch. ~Kvng (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: neither the company nor the product is sufficiently notable for the encyclopedia. Sourcing is in passing; WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Capacitance. Although several votes were to keep, almost all of them were based on opinion; therefore this will be redirected for the timebeing per WP:SYNTH and WP:LISTN. If you feel that there may be an issue, please see WP:DRV. (non-admin closure) FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude (capacitance)[edit]

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

A majorly unsourced article (and a few of the sourced ines are unreliable) that fails WP:LISTN and is comprised of noble-synthesis of data. And, if someone do manage to find such trivial list(s) in high-school/undergrad science text-book (which often have them to provide an indicative idea of the vastness of the real range of a physical quantity), we are not one.We are an encyclopedia. ∯WBGconverse 06:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article is part of a set – see the following navigational template. It doesn't make sense to consider this in isolation when other members of the set have been extensively discussed and kept previously. For example, see RfC, AfD. Andrew D. (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also fails WP:LISTN: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" – which this one hasn't. There's also what looks like WP:OR in the right-hand column. If anyone wants to know what (for example) fF means, they can type it into the search box and land on the DAB page FF, which includes a handy link to femtofarad. This list isn't even worth merging into farad.
The same goes for all the other nominated articles of this type. Narky Blert (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 07:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is useful because it compares different amounts of capacitance, and most of it is referenced. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:08, 31 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 Tucker (2000 TV series)#Cast. Consensus that the page should be removed, no argument against keeping the redirect or revision history. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Lawrence[edit]

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

Former child actor with a small range of roles, primarily from the 1990s. No real notability is demonstrated as the only source included is IMDb and internet searches indicate there are hardly any more. CallyMc (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:12, 31 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. Just about agreement that GNG/NEVENT are satisfied. Also agreement that a merge discussion might be warranted, which can be raised in the usual fashion (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women Disobey[edit]

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

Very low turnout and no impact. Fails WP:NEVENT as there is no WP:SUSTAINED or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, not to mention this fails WP:GEOSCOPE. wumbolo ^^^ 10:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I read through the article, I am not sure how relevant this particular protect sits in with other protects. I am not sure if the title is helping or not. There were over 4,000 views of the article end of July, but now there doesn't appear to be much viewership now which suggests the article and topic really are not that big a deal. I am also going to disregard WP:GNG, it's probably better to have an article Protests during the Trump administration. Govvy (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm satisfied that the GNG is met in this case; per WP:PRESERVE, the content could alternatively be merged into Protests against the Trump administration family separation policy, where this is listed as a "main article" for one section. XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since article passes GNG. Xoreaster's suggestion seems more appropriate than deletion. Rab V (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 06:28, 31 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. Yunshui 雲水 10:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Sports Holiday[edit]

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

Unofficial "holiday". Furthermore, there are no sources titling this holiday "American Sports Holiday". WP:NEO

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. The sources cited in the article don't even mention or refer to something called "American Sports Holiday". My searches also fail to turn up significant coverage, in multiple, reliable sources, for "American Sports Holiday". Cbl62 (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear fail of WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication that this has been discussed by multiple reliable sources. --Kinu t/c 21:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atal Indian[edit]

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

Part of Atal Indian. Not independently notable. Rathfelder (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I accidentally tagged the wrong article. I meant to nominate Atal Vatika. Rathfelder (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:NGO and WP:GNG I am taking the nom for this AfD. a Tree planting campaign, started by an actor has only received interview like WP:INHERITED coverage. Its website says, [29]Atal Indian has been conceptualized by Nitin Sahrawat, as part of his social outreach efforts.. This is a minor 2 para coverage. This is coverage of the actor mostly. This is an interview and not Independent coverage. The content at Nitin_Sahrawat#Social_causes is enough for this sort of coverage. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As mentioned by Rathfelder, this article was mistakenly tagged for deletion. I personally feel that more articles related to environment conservation projects should be included on Wikipedia.The Seeker Syndrome (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: The Seeker Syndrome (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Hi Author of this article, since I have taken up the nomination, it does not matter anymore that the tagger now disagreed with his nomination. If you have any Policy based justification please provide, merely stating WP:ILIKEIT would not help in your cause.--DBigXrayᗙ 10:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I overlooked WP:AVOIDCOI, my bad. Also, thanks for the advice to avoid WP:ILIKEIT. I would suggest that the coverage provided is sufficient to establish the notability of Atal IndianThe Seeker Syndrome (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage Atal Indian has got is WP:INHERITED (i.e. coverage is mainly due to the actor) nor is the coverage WP:SIGCOV.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 00:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone wants to keep either article we need coverage about the organisation and its activities, not just about Nitin Sahrawat.Rathfelder (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DBigXRay. Absent SIGCOV, a standalone article isn't any merited.∯WBGconverse 20:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing to justify a stand-alone article Spiderone 09:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawing the nomination per Esn's good argument. Could be useful. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1st Open Russian Festival of Animated Film[edit]

1st Open Russian Festival of Animated Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet general notability guideline per WP:GNG. Lack of reliable secondary sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 00:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not understand why you want to delete this article. Do a Google search for "Открытый Российский Фестиваль Анимационного Кино 1996" and you will find plenty of news articles talking about the festival in general, as well as the 2018 edition, including mentions of 1996 as the year when it started. It is the most important/only film festival of the domestic Russian animation industry (or at least was that for quite a while). What exactly is so objectionable about Wikipedia providing a public service for researchers into little-known (but notable) niches by giving a breakdown of which films won awards in a given notable film festival in a particular year? If given time, I can probably find contemporary press mentions as well (they certainly would have existed, though I'm not sure if Russian newspapers have online archives going back to 1996). Right now, it's a little difficult as I'm packing for a plane trip... I would ask others to please help if you can, and please use some common sense before putting perfectly useful articles up for deletion... Esn (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo Sliders[edit]

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

Not enough reliable sources to support an article. Was de-PROD'd on the basis that the article from Pelit magazine constitutes a reliable source.

Aside from the Pelit article from 2006 (here), there is one very short article on Muropaketti [fi] (here), which appears to be some kind of gaming site. No evident editorial policy or even really an about page, so no way to judge reliability.

Only other source located was this one from GamesIndustry.biz which is clearly a press release, and therefore contributes nothing to notability.

No other reliable sources located on Google or the custom searches maintained by WikiProject Video Games at WP:VG/SE. Two sources, one fairly short and unreliable, is not enough to maintain an article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I de-proded and added the two existing refs. The Muropaketti.com source is a tech/game website owned by a major publisher called Otava, so that would be probably a pretty good source when it comes to videogames even if it's just one news article they did about the 10 year anniversary of the game. Not much, but I know this game has been featured in paper versions of Finnish game magazines, although I'm not going to dig those up, so for me it's weak keep. --Pudeo (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A total of two relevant hits on the custom WP:VG/RS Google search engine. GamesIndustry.biz and Pelit.fi. Not enough relevant coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 00:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:50, 31 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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Harris (software developer)[edit]

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

not notable, just a software developer of 2 proprietary software Editor-1 (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Editor-1 (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:GNG because he was recognised by his peers as making a significant contribution to software development in New Zealand. I note that there is not a lot written about him, but both his software developments are still active NealeFamily (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* You come from New Zealand and your fellow-citizen has very little coverage in press outside New-Zealand, all the references in the article are from that country and I don't think the Lifetime Achievement Award which is a friendly award, can give notability to this article. Editor-1 (talk) 11:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an IT geek, but noting the comments on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercury Mail Transport System, I get the impression that the software David Harris developed is more significant than the article states. It needs someone from the IT world to comment NealeFamily (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This guy has been around a long time, kind of a founding father in internet mail, web communications. I am surprised his article is so small, [30] Govvy (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he's certainly a major figure in the world of email software development. Sadly, he's also very much a recluse, so there isn't much information about him online. For what it's worth, here's a non-New Zealand article about him and his work. [31] Grutness...wha? 13:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Er, Grutness I already posted that link in my comment above! Govvy (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That link is all about "Pegasus Mail" and rarely mentioned him just as its developer, so it does not help to his notability. Editor-1 (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacking information which may not meet the WP:GNG, as I agree with Editor-1 he is just non notable software delvopler of just 2 proprietary softwares. Sheldybett (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand Harris' work is part of the history of email as a platform, and was the subject of two Usenet newsgroups and several mailing lists. He's one of the few people who authored both a popular email server and a email client. The article needs work, but not deletion. Anirvan (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: If his work is really part of the E-mail history there should be many independent sources about him, but there is no significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The fact is this person is just a regular software developer with little coverage about his 2 proprietary software. Editor-1 (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments that address the amount of reference material available, not what he did, would be helpful in determining notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus was quite a thing in its day, and an interesting piece of world and NZ internet history. Yes this article is a stub, but keeping it gives a chance for it to be completed Somej (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was The result was Speedy keep/Nomination withdrawn. (NAC closure). Nsk92 (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Beatty[edit]

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

Not a notable person. JDDJS (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Order of Canada, and her listing in The Canadian Encyclopedia, are enough for me. She has been noted (by the Canadian government and a major national encyclopedia), therefore she is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David Eppstein. Article should be expanded, not deleted. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy/snow keep. Even a cursory google news check shows plenty of significant coverage. I have added a few sample references to the article. In addition to what David Eppstein says above, Beatty also founded/co-founded two significant dance companies, including the Toronto Dance Theatre. Suggest a quick close. Nsk92 (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn I made a mistake with this nomination. JDDJS (talk) 16:33, 31 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. Yunshui 雲水 10:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ripeka Wharawhara Love[edit]

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

Delete: as thoroughly non-notable individual. Cannot derive notability via her son. Quis separabit? 03:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My impression, from having seen a few AFDs about other New Zealanders with relatively limited sourcing, is that having a DNZB entry, as Love does, was a strong indicator of notability (e.g. see this AFD from 2016). IntoThinAir (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is apparently the current consensus. Personally I think that needs to be revisited. There are clearly many people who would obviously fail GNG otherwise and it seems to lower the standard of WP:N by automatically assuming this is an adequate justification for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: she meets two of the criteria of WP:ANYBIO: 

   1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.
   3. The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.

She received an OBE in 1918 "for services in connection with the Maori Expeditionary Force Funds" in WWI, and she does have an entry in the New Zealand Dictionary of Biography (written in 1996, updated in 2000, and also published online in the Encyclopaedia of New Zealand). The Imperial War Museum in London just tweeted about her OBE; an extract from her writings was included in another book published in 1996; another website in Wellington, NZ, also has a profile of her; and she is included in a Dictionary of women worldwide: 25,000 women through the ages (published 2007). RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO as brought out by RebeccaGreen above, also here is a small obit in Te Ao Hou / The New World. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the most significant Māori women leaders of her day. Paora (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs substantial upgrade to the article NealeFamily (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep based on her DNZB entry alone. Schwede66 18:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Technophobia. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Internet phobia[edit]

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

This article uses the DSM-5 for references, and yet also states, "Internet phobia has yet to be classified in the DSM-5 alongside specific phobia and social phobia." It's not in the DSM-5. The cited pages are faked, or are rather about agoraphobia. The article consists of WP:OR and this silly source. The citation template for the source states " 'Internet phobia'. 'Internet phobia' from Baidu Baike." But the title of the source is "Cibobobia." Google "cibobobia," and see what you get. Nada. Further, the source begins by stating, "With the advent of the Internet age, democratic participation and information disclosure are getting higher and higher, as if everything was observed with a magnifying glass. It is understood that many officials have a lot of fear, but the most fearful is the network. Recently, some local officials have reported to the People’s Forum reporters that many local cadres now have different levels of 'network' fear, and they are worried that personal information, job omissions or irregularities will be exposed by the network and will be out of control." I'm not sure if this Wikipedia article is a hoax, since more than one reference in it has "Agoraphobia" in the title and the sources are about agoraphobia in those cases rather than "Internet phobia," which shows that those titles weren't faked with "Internet phobia," but it is a likely hoax. It is either a hoax or a well-meaning entry, but the sources are about agoraphobia and generalized anxiety. I see no WP:Reliable sources for "Internet phobia." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking on the search links above, I do see a few sources using the term "Internet phobia," but not in the way that this Wikipedia article uses the term and goes into detail about it, and the mentions are usually passing mentions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Text contains numerous references to the DSM-5 as a source, but the actual pages referenced are for Agoraphobia. This is, at best, synthesis and at worst, intentional falsification in the bibliography in the furtherance of a hoax or poorly reasoned WP:OR. Most other sources similarly on investigation are used fraudulently, and do not point to anything corroborating the article topic.Legitimus (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The DSM-5 reference is entirely about agoraphobia. There is no mention of "internet phobia". PubMed has nothing at all about "internet phobia". The Baidu reference is a wiki. It is unsuitable as a source. The Cochrane database reference is about agoraphobia. The Lancet reference does not mention "internet phobia" either. While four other books are referenced in the article, I don't have easy access to any of them. Despite this, I would be surprised if any of them support notability of "internet phobia". Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding book references, which I chased down: 'Elster' (2009) is merely the etymology of "phobia." 'Solove' (2004) has no page reference, but regardless, makes no mention of phobias at all and it is mere a book on digital privacy. 'Buss' (1980) literally pre-dates the internet as we know it and is a book about social anxiety generally. 'Wyatt' (2008) is yet another that only points to agoraphobia.Legitimus (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Technophobia Yup references are not about the subject in question. I also checked the DSM5... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid confusion, note that Doc James's original vote was to redirect the article to the Phobia article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not redirect. Redirect to technophobe (see also comment below to User:Coolabahapple) It is original research with likely no notability whatsoever, if it even exists as a standalone disorder - which is extremely unlikely, in my view. It looks very much like it is a hoax, quite probably created in good faith though. The very small number of book sources available (which I read the preview pages using the term) are all using “internet phobia” as a descriptor for people (particularly the elderly) who lack confidence in utilising technology or people who are afraid of online dating sites because of horror stories, etc. There is not one source that describes it as a mental disorder. We don’t create articles on this basis, so effectively there is a total of zero sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per all the above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, as a possible wikireader search term could this be a redirect to Technophobia? also, heres a newsweek article: "Diagnosis Internet Phobia" so although not an official (DSM-5) term, has been used in the popular press? Coolabahapple (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that makes sense, I have struck and rewrote the redirect part of my vote above.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting it there would work. But like I stated at WP:Med, some of these phobia articles are not phobias in the clinical sense. An IP touched on this at Talk:Technophobia, where the IP stated, "The introductory two paragraphs seem particularly biased. While there are people who have a psychological fear of technology, the majority of the time the term technophobia is used it's referring to people who take a principled stance against technology, as shown by the rest of the article with Luddites and Anabaptist groups. While psychological adversity to technology is a thing, this article should atleast make an explicit distinction between the two." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Think of how homophobia is a societal matter rather than a clinical matter...except for when it involves physical and/or sexual violence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. As Clarityfiend mentioned, AfD is not the place for merger proposals. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsman (film series)[edit]

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

Proposal to merge with Kingsman (franchise).

Almost all content available in the "film series" article is already available in the "franchise" article, including the released and upcoming films, television series, cast/characters, crew and reception. The only thing I see that is not included in the "franchise" article is the music, which can be copied across from the "film series" article. The "franchise" article also contains extra content that the "film series" article does not, such as marketing, video game and animation.

Furthermore, the inclusion of a television series at the "film series" article makes the article into not a "film series" article, but a "franchise" article. Also noted that the "franchise" article does not link to the "film series" article at all. -- AlexTW 02:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. Afd is not the place for merger proposals. See WP:MERGEPROP. It would get my vote there, though. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:29, 31 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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suwayfah[edit]

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

I thought the mass deletion of the UAE stubs were over but it isn't. The coordinates for this place points to the sea which is a very strange place to find a "location" and it fails WP:V. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 10:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 10:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For those who don't know, Alexandermcnabb lives in the UAE and speaks Arabic. He has been the leading light in getting deleted all the UAE rubbish created by John Carter. When he says the place exists, is populated, and that is what it is called, you can be sure that is. He will actually have been there. That's good enough for me. SpinningSpark 09:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe this subject does deserve an article in Wikipedia. But we cannot allow it to happen on the basis of editors' personal testimony! Our own experience does not count as a Wikireliable source. And the subject is far from something that is blatantly obvious. -The Gnome (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not much, but several booking sites offer multiple hotels in Suwayfah. The Fairmont Fujairah Beach Resort, for instance, describes itself as being located there. Suwayfah is clearly a big holiday playground with multiple hotels, and gmaps satellite view shows a substantial marina. It's surprising we can't find more online, but existence at least, seems proven. SpinningSpark 13:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - click on the show on map link here [[33]] and then zoom out - you'll see it. There appear to be several resorts and restaurants. So I'd say it does just barely pass WP:GEOLAND. However, it really doesn't matter one way or another, since the article is a one sentence stub - if it's important for any reason yet is deleted, it can easily be restored. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per The Gnome's rationale. We're still not even sure what it is so we can't decide whether to apply WP:GEOFEAT or WP:GEOLAND. A one-sentence article asserting that something exists at X, Y isn't an article which passes WP:GNG. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mr mcnabb has culled dozens of these stubs and reckons this one exists, I've no reason to disagree. Szzuk (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 10:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Hastings earthquake[edit]

2008 Hastings earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the WP:NEARTHQUAKE despite with minor damage. Sheldybett (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This was just a news story at the time with no evidence of enduring notability e.g. no scientific papers have been written. Mikenorton (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, its magnitude fails WP:NEARTHQUAKE, I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources for this event. Polyamorph (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well below 7 on Richter, no fatalities, no significant devastation. Fails WP:NEARTHQUAKE. Ajf773 (talk) 09:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NEARTHQUAKE as it has very less magnitude and can not be called a major earthquake which made an impact on the life, the event also fails WP:GNG as the reliable independent sources to prove its authenticity.Vinodbasker (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This insignificant event has been on my delete list for some time. Dawnseeker2000 10:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_October_31&oldid=1142615145"