Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 October	5 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to IMG (company). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMG Models[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet general notability guidelines. Mostly consists of a list of people represented by the firm, for which notability is not inherited would apply. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 21:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to IMG (company): WP:ATD-M that will improve the suggested merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No WP:NEXIST evidence of independent notability. Merge to IMG (company). Aoziwe (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to IMG (company) as the merge target is more notable and can easily cover any important information about this subject. Orientls (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to IMG (company) --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to IMG (company) omitting the virtually unreferenced list of models which is unlikely to be kept up to date. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to IMG (company) and drop the list; I'm happy to rely on the category Category:IMG Models models in this situation due to the promotional/maintenance issues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ekenbabu[edit]

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

Fictional character from a Bengali-language series of books–neither the series, the individual books, nor the author appear to be notable, leaving it scant chance of achieving notability. Google searches return mentions in blogs, but nothing that would demonstrate notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The main body of content in this is entirely unsourced, and doesn't appear as though any proper sourcing will be found. Waggie (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The author posted these references on my talk page. Not sure if it changes my opinion much, but here they are (in Bengali): [1] and [2] Waggie (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO those could be used for an article about the series more broadly, or about the web show (although I didn't check the sources' reliability), but don't justify creating an article for the character. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possibly the author is notable and would justify an article; thecurrent article here could then be used as a starting point. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in that this article, about a fictional character, without an article about the author or the fictional series, is reversing the order of what should be written up. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DNA Model Management[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet general notability guidelines. Mostly consists of a list of people represented by the firm, for which notability is not inherited would apply. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 21:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is this agency any different from any other agency that has a Wikipedia article? Look at the page for IMG Models for example. How is THAT more notable than this? It also only has 3 references. Lupine453 (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lupine453: Thank you for pointing that out, just created an AfD for it. Also, please see other stuff exists. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 21:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH; a search for source turns up only trivial mentions or mentions in passing, I.E nothing in depth that is actually concerned with the company. The nom is absolutely correct to point out WP:NOTINHERITED, as in the case DNA Model Management does not inherit notability from notable people it has worked with in the past.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Just a directory listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poe (musical)[edit]

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

Previously nominated for PROD by Boneymau with the reasoning No independent sources for the article. In any case, too soon, as just seems to be a non-professional reading.. Blocked by an IP editor with the assertion that BroadwayWorld is a credible news site that counts as an independent source. Articles referenced are credited to the BroadwayWorld News Desk. Presumably nobody involved also works for BroadwayWorld. However, BroadwayWorld largely republishes press releases, as noted at this RSN discussion, and this article's sourcing appears to be no exception, as the BroadwayWorld reporting is just WP:ROUTINE coverage of an announced public reading. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. As noted, Broadwayworld republishing media releases is not a reliable source. Boneymau (talk) 10:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Rosguill's description of Broadway World is spot on. At best this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:55, 6 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Joseph2302 (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Strakhov[edit]

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

Not notable according to the criteria for association football. Only players that played in an International game or major league game (that's Russian Premier League, Russian Football National League or Russian Professional Football League for Russia) are considered "notable". According to the article itself he plays Russian Second Division. As a side note: searching online for his name (also in Cyrillic letters), you almost exclusively find information about someone solving Rubik's cubes (not the same person). Judith Sunrise (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Russian Second Division is the Russian Professional Football League, renamed since around 2013–14 it seems. According to Soccerway, Strakhov has made twenty appearances in that league which is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. R96Skinner (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - seems like I was confused by the different names of the leagues. Judith Sunrise (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Sur[edit]

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

Unsourced, fails WP:V and pin points to RAK city area of Uraibi. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uncited and inaccurate three-word article. Softlavender (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete who knows where that is. Szzuk (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 21:03, 4 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. With due regards to Oakshade's keep !vote, the discussion has tended towards delete (I say "tended", taking into account power-enwiki's comments on the Rename option). While I am deleting this article, my personal bent is that if sources discussing the subject significantly can be found, I would be keen to undelete this article. Lourdes 16:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stu Osborn Show[edit]

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

Minor viral ad with not enough lasting impact to require its own article. I wasn't able to find any sources other than those linked in the article, and I checked Google, GNews, GBooks, and GScholar. I also checked Highbeam and Newspapers.com (on a lark; I know it's mostly archival) and found nothing. Of the sources in the article, the first one is paywalled so I can't access it. The second is a name-drop only, and does not discuss the ad. The third confirms it won a Webby, but there's no inherent notability to winning a Webby. Arguably, awards grant notability because reliable sources discuss works which earn notable awards. But if there's no independent coverage of something as an award-winner, it's hard to argue that the award lends much to notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lean to Keep - My position hasn't changed since the last AfD. As major talent put on this project (Christopher Guest, Fred Willard, Michael Hitchcock) it's hard to imagine this not being considered notable, which is why I created it. The Webby Award is a strong indication of notability. The Shoot reference is substantial despite now being behind a paywall. It's still surprising I've not found much more than the Shoot reference either. But like with the last AfD, common sense makes sense. --Oakshade (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. If there was media coverage because those people participated in it, then that would be indicative of notability. But their participation alone does not make this notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 3 refs:1st paywalled, 2nd in passing, 3rd now a deadlink. No independent sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, per WP:N and WP:NEXIST, sources don't have to be available in the current state of the article. "No independent sources" is simply not accurate. --Oakshade (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any available at all, as far as I could tell. As noted in my nomination, I did a fairly thorough WP:BEFORE check and found nothing aside from the one paywalled source already linked in the article. From WP:NEXIST: "once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are specified sources., not unspecified. And I just fixed the 3rd one anyway. --Oakshade (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've fixed it, it's clear that the content didn't actually win the award in that category in 2008. "COCA COLA HAPPINESS FACTORY II - THE VIRTUAL PREMIERE" was the 2008 Branded Content winner. The Stu Osborn show is listed in the "view all Webby honorees" link at the bottom of that category with a number of other pieces of content. Being an "honoree" rather than a winner contributes nothing to notability, and so again we are left with the single source already linked in the article, and a single source is just not enough to consider something notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that too. Still a Webby Award honoree is an indication of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to what sources? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the references (and the Webby Award, which I can't verify at [3]) don't suggest this is a notable ad campaign, or that it was a popular "viral video". However, Microsoft's marketing campaigns in general is almost certainly a notable topic. If such an article existed, this could be merged there. I note that the Bill Gates/Jerry Seinfeld ad campaign has plenty of coverage and is mentioned briefly on Gates' article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually looked for such an article when I first came upon this one, with the hope of merging this one there, but there isn't one. I wouldn't object to a merge & redirect if that article gets made, but I'll be honest in saying I don't have any interest in making it myself. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that having such an article is a good idea (Apple Inc. advertising is mediocre; Reebok advertising campaigns is terrible). If people want the article I can create/expand it; closing this as Rename is probably the easiest option if that's the consensus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – while the Webby award is a suitable claim of notability per WP:NWEB, I can't find any independent sources to verify this claim. And for some reason I can't even find mention of this show on the Webby website, so the information fails WP:V. Brad v 21:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear (mainly for others who look at this discussion), per the commentary under Smallbones's comment above, the content did not even win the Webby. It was listed as a "Webby honoree" for the category - basically an honorable mention, with about a dozen other pieces of content. So its claim to notability is even weaker than it first appears. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 20:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terror (TV series)[edit]

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

No coverage outside of winning an award. Declined speedy. wumbolo ^^^ 14:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, this needs more sources than it has before it can be considered a good article. But winning a Canadian Screen Award does exactly the same thing for a Canadian TV show that winning an Emmy Award does for an American one — it is, right on its face, a hard clean pass of our notability criteria for television shows. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Emmies have been awarded for almost twelve times longer than this Canadian award. wumbolo ^^^ 14:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the ability of a film or television award to make its winning programs notable is not a question of how long the award has been presented — if it's the top level film or television award in its country, then it automatically clinches the notability of its winners and nominees regardless of whether it's been around for 300 years or one. Secondly, the Canadian Screen Awards' name is the only part of it that's only six years old — it's merely a recent renaming of an award that's been around since 1949 under other names. The Emmys are older than the CSAs by a whopping three months, not years or decades — the only difference is that the CSAs have changed their name a couple of times in the intervening decades, while the Emmys haven't. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Correct me if I'm wrong, but winning an Emmy or any other award has nothing to do with whether a TV show is notable. Not seeing any such criterion in WP:NTV. It doesn't have a rotten tomatoes entry either, so it's hard to find coverage on this without just finding stuff on "The Terror". – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 22:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, winning an Emmy or a CSA is a valid claim of notability for a TV show, in exactly the same way that an Academy Award or a CSA is a valid notability claim for a film. The TV subsection doesn't do a good job at the moment of explicitly respecifying that, I'll grant, but the general notability criteria for media as a whole, which TV is a subsection of rather than a standalone document, make it quite clear that award-winningness is a hard notability pass for media content. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't seem to be explicit policy then, and I'd rather it not be. Good sourcing is a prerequisite to writing a good article. Even if this TV show won an award, if there's no sources, there's no article to write. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NMEDIA makes it explicit; the TV subsection not making a special point of restating the overall NMEDIA principle that was already stated up top is not the same thing as the rule not being explicit. And while I acknowledged in my initial comment that the article needs more sources than it has before it can be considered a genuinely good article, it already has enough sources that a deletion argument based on "lack of sourcing" is already in clear contradiction of the facts. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and which sources are those? – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 19:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The three sources that are already in the article, perhaps? Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I asked was because the current sources aren't sufficient. The first source is about Vice and only mentions the show in passing, the second source is from the people who make the show, and the last one is another passing mention in an article about awards. Your condescension is unnecessary. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the existing sources were brilliant ones (I explicitly said, in fact, that the article needs more sources before it can be considered good) — but they are enough to verify that (a) the information in the article is accurate, and (b) the show has a clean pass of a hard notability criterion. We have many articles about Oscar-nominated films and Emmy-award winning TV programs that cite fewer sources than this already does. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CBC reporting on the CSA win is reliable third party coverage as per WP:GNG regardless of whether the award itself confers notability. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. wumbolo ^^^ 15:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious how you think the CBC doesn't count as a reliable source, but there's also a ref to the Montreal Gazette. Multiple independent major national media reports = WP:GNG satisfied. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources mention it only once, and say only a handful of words about it. WP:GNG isn't satisfied by minor mentions. wumbolo ^^^ 16:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind also that even if you believe those sources fulfill GNG (they don't, the Montreal gazette article isn't about this TV series at all), if the coverage is not WP:SUSTAINED then it still falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Remember that passing GNG does not automatically mean keep. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:26, 10 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 City Lore. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Place Matters[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. No sources. » Shadowowl | talk 09:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to City Lore, the organization under which it currently operates a gallery. Gallery probably meets WP:N but this isn't notable enough for a spinoff. I'm not against merge but not advocating for it as there's content about it there already and probably doesn't need to be this detailed. StarM 02:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 16:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 20:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saint-Joseph of Reims[edit]

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

Fail WP:GNG, promo, cut-and-paste translation with dodgy results. The Banner talk 11:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If they're copy-paste translating whole sections from their handbooks and websites, then it should be tagged for copyvio and the article needs to have WP:TNT before considering deletion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, "cut-and-paste translation" as in "a quick translation without checking the sources". The Banner talk 22:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 16:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a transaltion of the French article, here. It is entirely comprehensible to me. If there are issues with the translation that is a matter for clean-up fixing and is not a ground for deletion. The French article has been around since September 2010 and there is no indication of copyright concerns over there. This is a historic school and, whilst the article would benefit from more independent sources, a search on the French titles, as well as the English, shows up sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk)
Keep I too find it extremely frustrating when I find cut and paste translations. Nevertheless, keep as above. Pjposullivan (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naga MC[edit]

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

Won a relatively minor youth award - some coverage of this win and his subsequent summer vacation. Not close to passing WP:MUSICBIO. Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 12:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 16:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. - Editor General of Wiki (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I'm not sure how this has been open for over two weeks. Going to post at ANI to clean up the copy-paste merge. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Menu icon[edit]

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

Unnecessary removal of (more expansive) Hamburger button to replace with Menu icon. Many of the citations even call it "hamburger button," so I fail to see why the name change was needed. Xevus11 (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, request a move if the title is incorrect. (And I agree, for the record, that "hamburger button" is a better title - AfD is just the wrong venue.) Enterprisey (talk!) 18:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What would you recommend I do? This user is brand new, but converted a perfectly fine article to write a new one under a worse name about the same subject. I figured i'd just revert the old article and AFD this one. Xevus11 (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xevus11, probably ask an admin to move it back? Or open a requested move. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Menu Icon (the more correct name for the subject). Keep redirect of "Hamburger menu" to Menu Icon. If you search internet for "Hamburger menu", yes you get lots of hits but that's part of the problem. This is a name that was given by people who didn't know what the correct name for the subject was and it just "stuck" in the popular vernacular. You can also get many hits for the more accurate "Menu Icon". So keeping the redirect is the fair way to handle this, if user searches wikipedia for "Hamburger Menu" they'll be redirected and it will help them learn the more appropriate and accurate name of the subject. Also note I copied almost everything from the "Hamburger menu" article - I just edited to remove reference to "Hamburger" as needed. In that sense it wasn't a "removal" and it isn't less expansive. I effectively "moved" the article to the correct title. I also *added* many references to "Menu Icon" to properly establish the history of the subject, most of which pre-date references to the subject as "hamburger menu". @Enterprisey I don't know of any "move" that you refer to "request a move if the title is incorrect" but that's kinda of what I was trying to accomplish here; move the content and keep a redirect in its place. Ericnoel (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:COMMONNAME may apply here. There's a difference between the topic of "any menu icon at all" (what is that, even? an icon that you click on to get a menu?) and the specific icon that is widely used in contemporary web design, and I think that we should cover only the latter, at the title "Hamburger menu". Enterprisey (talk!) 08:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 16:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. This is a naming and content dispute. Szzuk (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. This looks like the wrong venue for content/title discussion. I don't see a policy based reason for deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and resolve naming dispute. I'm inclined to buy the claim that 'menu icon' is the formal -- and therefore preferable -- name, but this would need to be demonstrated more clearly from the technical literature. ARK (talk)
Keep per ARK. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

José Goldner[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; not notable, no independent sources. Article created by WP:COI editor. Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find independent references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Barber[edit]

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

Appears to have maybe worked on notable scores but is lacking entirely in any significant independent coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While this is an improvement compared to the first draft, the fact of the matter is, the subject just doesn't meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Benefiting THON[edit]

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

We have just deleted & redirected The Four Diamonds Fund at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Diamonds Fund. This is the article on its related fund-raising organization. The extraordinary detail makes it clear that the intent is promotional. The references are local, and the event is non notable

See also the adjacent AfD for the article on the non notable related organization. The contents are very similar. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 10:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Penn State IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon per nom; or delete if that page is deleted. Coverage in student newspapers/blogs is not sufficient for GNG; most of it is about Dance Marathon and not just this team. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References fail WP:ORG in scope (WP:AUD) and depth. Text is promotional to the extent that WP:G11 probably applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This could be a section in the THON article, but that could be a section in the Four Diamonds Fund, and that could be a section in the Hershey Hospital article. Is that 3 degrees removed from notability? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nawabs of Punjab[edit]

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

Bunch of WP:SYNTHESIS, sprinkled with a few hoaxes, heavily edited by a blocked sockpuppet. This article implies that the Punjab was a single state ruled by a nawab (a local Muslim prince of a princely state), while File:Punjab-Districts 1911.png shows various princely states (also called native states) within the Punjab. In other words, there is no such thing as a "Nawab of Punjab". HyperGaruda (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This fails V and does seem to be a hoax. I will note that during at least some of this period, the Governor of Lahore did have authority over much of the Punjab. In 1713, Abdus Samar Khan (there is another person with that name who has a wikipedia page, so I'm not redlinking) was placed into that post, and he and his son seem encyclopedic.[4] Similarly, that post seems encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- I recently participated in the AFD for Mohammed Ali I, allegedly Humayun Bakht's successor, which turned out either to be a pack of lies or at best related to a NN person. this indicates that Humayun Bakht did at least exist, but he was blinded on the orders of his brother, a convenient way of disposing of rivals. It is also incompatible with his being a ruler. The possibility that there were ruling nawabs before about 1760 remains an open question in my mind, but there is so much rubbish (or details of NN persons) in this article that the best solution is to delete it and start again. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 7 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. Needs work but in principle this is a valid list. Tone 20:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of land borders with dates of establishment[edit]

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

nominating on behalf of an IP user, their reasoning is below. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is unsourced for more than ten years and looks like full of original research. I think it should be deleted.--2001:DA8:201:3512:BCE6:D095:55F1:36DE (talk) 11:03 am, Today (UTC−8)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect to List of countries and territories by land borders; it's not a great target so I'm not opposed to a keep. The IP's concerns are valid, but with cleanup to add links to articles like Austria–Switzerland border this may be a feasible article topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm not sure whether this is WP:OR or not. I think it can definitely be sourced, though - I even have a book in storage about the geography of borders I'll have to take a look at. SportingFlyer talk 23:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IP user lacks specific, detailed reasoning, only his minimal "thought."Jeff in CA (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NLIST as a notable topic that can easily be referenced, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How can individual entries be referenced? We can have maps, but we don't know whether they describes the same border. Also I don't think there will be any defined borders in 1st millennium BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:201:3512:F456:DF2E:A195:48D8 (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes notability test. Sources can be added and the article can be cleaned up which is WP:ATD. JC7V-constructive zone 01:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, with no prejudice against re-creation by someone who is willing to source it. Editors have a right to challenge unsourced material, and the burden is on the person wishing to keep the information to source it. The IP has challenged the entire list, and I support that challenge. Sourcing this list is welcome, but we should not have a massive collection of may-or-may-not-be true statements, possibly OR, sitting in mainspace forever. It will be forever, by the way, because finding a source saying "X established these countries' current borders" for every entry in this list is going to be hundreds if not thousands of hours work, and since we're all volunteers, none of us have that much time. We're just not going to do it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threesomething[edit]

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

Non-notable film, so far as I can tell hasn't been subject to any coverage. The sources in the article are laughably bad and I came up with nothing better in a search of newspapers, googles or most review sites. Praxidicae (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, plus the article creator, who provided almost all of the content, appears to be an WP:SPA with three edits to their name. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found a review by Film Threat, which is good, but everything else looks to be either minor, primary, or created by self-published sources that wouldn't be usable on here. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't meet WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Parle[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. No coverage found. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of minor roles, but not seeing anything that would get him past WP:NACTOR. General lack of reliable source coverage. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has done very minor roles in films so does not satisfy WP:NACTOR and also fails WP:ANYBIO Vinodbasker (talk) 04:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)*[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. Spleodrach (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources. The fact that this article without a reliable source has existed for 5 years says something sad about our monitoring of new articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cian Furlong[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Spleodrach (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable composer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Stolen Wings[edit]

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

Article is written by the director/producer User:Tech2012 [5] who seems to use Wikipedia as their primary source of marketing. Only independent sources here are capsule reviews. Fails WP:NFILM and is probably eligible for WP:G11 given the WP:PUFFERY. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not go anywhere near meeting WP:NFILM. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFILM. Spleodrach (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched and what I found was pretty much just primary sources and content released through WP:SPS that wouldn't be considered reliable on Wikipedia. The only outlets that seem to have reviewed the film are blog-type websites. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:55, 5 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. GitHub stars and sub-reddits may be indicators of notability, there is no policy-based argument for considering them actual evidence of notability. The award could be seen as such, but this position has little support. Vanamonde (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egison[edit]

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

Too soon for encyclopedic notability.The award hardly propels the language to automatic-notability.Additionally, I can only locate this piece. ∯WBG^converse 10:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - Its GitHub star count that indicates the popularity of the language as an open-source software seems to be big enough to be an article of the encyclopedia. Additionally, the three accepted papers to the international conferences also indicate the notability as an academic language. TurtleDoor (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The award is an award for the creator, and might go to his notability. But neither stars on github nor brand-new research papers all with the creator as author are convincing evidence of notability. Google doesn't suggest that anyone independent of Egi has written about this to any meaningful extent. So looks like a TOOSOON delete to me. --JBL (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Three papers by the inventor (conference proceedings at that :/ ) do not demonstrate notability, and there seems to be no secondary coverage. WP:TOOSOON. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to have a bit of traction in the pattern matching crowd, a wee buzz about it and not much else. The prize does seem significant according to the translations from the Rakuten Institute of Technology site. scope_creep (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, Bit of traction? What helped you to reach that assessment? The brand-new research papers all with the creator as author ?!

And, the award does not a summer make. ∯WBG^converse 13:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

∯WBG, I found a sub Reddit pattern matching crowd discussing the language, they seemed quite keen on it. There wasn't a great many people on it <1500, but they were discussing a whole bunch of stuff. It seems to be designed with them in mind. That was the only information I found, anywhere. Its truly bleeding edge. Regarding the award, they think it is important, while it is not classed as important on here, it may be notable, and has been awarded twice in this category, once for Ruby. It is not often that languages get an award, when they kick off. It a software award. It could be notable, but don't know. It is called Software Japan Award and is awarded by the Information Processing Society of Japan equivalent to the Association for Computing Machinery or the British Computer Society. As it is a learned society, they have to vote to elect who gets the award, making it a notable award, similar to the ACM Awards. scope_creep (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Though there is borderline consensus to delete here, relisting a final time in the hopes of reaching a clearer outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Github stars, subreddit enthusiasm, and subjective opinions of "buzz" do not count for notability. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Possibly but what about the award? User:FenixFeather. Github stars were never mentioned. scope_creep (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Github stars were mentioned by the very first "keep" vote. --JBL (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure awards don't impact notability either. The reason sources are so prized for notability is that they're the key to writing a solid, encyclopedic article that isn't going to be OR or a permastub forever. Egison might be on the rise, but as of right now, doesn't have enough coverage for a Wikipedia article. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 16:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course an award is an indicator of notability -- it is an instance of the awardee being noted by the broader world. The question is whether it is sufficient. (I personally don't think so.) --JBL (talk) 13:01, 6 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 United States House of Representatives elections in Kansas, 2018. Having read the arguments, it seems this is the option most people will be comfortable with. No prejudice against restoring to a full article if he wins the mid-terms. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Charles Watkins (politician)[edit]

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

This is a candidate for election to the U.S. House this November with no coverage independent of the campaign; articles such as this are often redirected to an article on the campaign for a combination of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTPROMO (both material supporting and opposing him can be promotional, and a combination of both is still promotional). There are several content problems with this article, but those are not reasons for deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Issues with this candidate have made this become an extremely high profile election, with extensive coverage in Kansas and Alaska. If there are content problems with any part of the article they should be addressed specifically. Thanks! Activist (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article includes seven references from six different reputable sources including the Topeka Capital Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Anchorage Daily News, WIBW, and Project Vote Smart. DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neither PROMO or BLP1E imply that we should not have articles on unelected candidates in general. WP:NOTPROMO rejects political advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind but explicitly says that An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.—I just went through and fixed some minor NPOV issues, so that's satisfied. Secondly, a congressional political campaign is not an "event", but a sustained engagement with the public sphere and a process of great public interest—and Watkins has clearly lost any WP:LOWPROFILE status.

Given that there is no policy or guideline telling us to ignore coverage generated in the context of a political campaign for the purposes of notability, the sources in the article—especially the Anchorage Daily News, Washington Post, and Topeka Capital-Journal stories—are sufficient to satisfy WP:BASIC and therefore confer notability. FourViolas (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't promotional, but it's almost written like a WP:BLP1E hit piece. If he doesn't win the upcoming election, I'm not sure he'll be notable. SportingFlyer talk 22:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Kansas, 2018. This is a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates running for the US House. If the candidate wins in November, the bepage should be restored. --Enos733 (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Local consensus or precedent does not overrule the standards set in WP:PAG; see WP:CONLIMITED. Changing the notability guidelines is done through community consensus, not jury nullification. Is there a policy- or guideline-based justification for the "automatically redirect unelected House candidates" standard? FourViolas (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can do any better than Bearcat's explanation on User talk:Editorofthewiki#Candidates. Keeping unelected house candidates is also U.S.-centric. SportingFlyer talk 20:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is based on the claim that NPOL should set a higher standard than WP:BASIC, to make it easier to exclude low-quality promotional material from Wikipedia. But this directly contradicts the language of BASIC: People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. If we want to make an exception for politicians, we hold a centralized discussion and rewrite the guideline, but we don't just start ignoring it in practice: consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale..

Instituting a policy of automatically keeping all U.S. House candidates would be U.S.-centric; maintaining the principle that notability is determined by depth of coverage, regardless of whether one is a U.S. House candidate or not, is not. FourViolas (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble isn't with WP:NPOL or what's below WP:BASIC - one can be a notable politician without passing WP:NPOL. The problem is what Wikipedia is not: WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YR and WP:BLP1E all come into play here, and we have a reasonable alternative of a redirect to the election - especially since the article is basically a giant negative hit piece. SportingFlyer talk 23:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge per Enos733, the controversy can be outlined there, especially since it's all self-generated coverage/WP:BLP1E fail, and seems to fail the ten-year test. SportingFlyer talk 20:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI've been reading Wikipedia for years, but only started commenting in August, so I'm not sure if I'm doing this right. I was directed here by the notice on the article. I think the article should be retained because this is a high profile person and situation which has drawn local and distant publicity and even the surprising negative comments from the 2020 Trump campaign's manager about the party's Kansas candidate. However I had a hard time finding the article in order to read it, first going to Steve Watkins, the baseball player's page. Can the title somehow be changed to make it more available? Sandnsea40 (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think User Sandnsea40 is correct: The title of the article needs changing. In my effort to avoid disambiguation problems, I created the article using Watkins' given name, rather than the one by which he is best known, "Steve Watkins." There is, of course, an article for the baseball player with that name. The links that should go to the candidate's article are instead self-referential, only leading to a different location on the 2018 elections page. If there are no objections, and unless there is an AfD rule about changing it while in progress, I'd like to move the name to Steve Watkins (politician)|Steve Watkins, and to make the appropriate referral link from the 2018 KS congressional elections article. In addition, I looked at the Conor Lamb article for some guidance, as it was a recent, similar situation. His career, though not low profile, had not in itself raised him to the level of unquestionable notability. That review was elucidative, however. Despite a few unsuccessful requests for AfD's, Lamb's campaign drew immense national attention, though he was just running in a special election to complete the ten-month remainder of a term. The many arguments made to Keep were persuasive. As the campaign went on, his article quickly saw over 150 edits made to it by dozens of editors, and by the day of the election, the total exceeded 250. Thanks to you all for your input. Activist (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I reviewed the 2018 KS Congressional Elections article, I noticed that Sharice Davids also lacks an article. President Trump went to Kansas yesterday to rally for both Kevin Yoder and Watkins, and gubernatorial candidate Kris Kobach. I don't know anything about Davids except that she is Ho-Chunk (Winnebago), an attorney, a lesbian single mom, and beat the Bernie Sanders-supported candidate in a crowded primary. She is leading in the polls above the margin of error over Yoder, the incumbent, who beat the wife of retiring congressman Dennis Moore for the seat, in 2010. Were she to win, she would be the first Native American woman elected to Congress, although the Laguna Pueblo's Deb Haaland (Navajo), a better known attorney, is also running a competitive race for NM's CD1 seat. I'll take a look to see if she might need an article as well and would appreciate any input as to that. Activist (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates aren't handed a notability freebie just because of what historic firsts they will represent if they go on to win an election they haven't won yet. If and when they do win, meaning that the historic first has actually been attained rather than simply existing in the realm of future possibility, then it counts for something — but no, candidates aren't automatically special cases just because they can claim that if they win they'll become the first of something they aren't already the first of. Our job here is not to start an article about every single person we think people might be looking for information about today because they're momentarily newsy — our job is to figure out "who will people still be looking for an article about ten years from now", and the answer to that question is officeholders, not the vast majority of unelected candidates. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BLP1E and the WP:NPOL consensus that candidates for office are not notable purely for their candidacy. Article is a mess with only thing of significance his candidacy. Rest of the article is filled with hilarious crap like "Watkins has said Kansas “was always home in my heart.”" AusLondonder (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPOL doesn't say that, though. It says that Just being an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". It doesn't say anything about those sources having to relate to something other than their candidacy. FourViolas (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's why WP:BLP1E is in play. If he loses, there'll be an article on him with a bunch of criticism of him during his campaign. SportingFlyer talk 22:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidates to the US house are almost never notable, and Watkins is not an exception to this rule. If he wins in November then he will be notable, but not until then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above discussion, and the difficulty inherent in searches for this article and the confusion of the subject of this article with others of the same name (Steve/Stephen Douglas Watkins), (Steve/Stephen George Watkins), Steve Watkins, the professor author (who has no Wikipedia page), etc., I've changed the name of the article and its Talk page, plus the link at the 2018 congressional election page, to Steve Watkins. If the title of this AfD page should be changed as well, perhaps one of the editors on this AfD could address that. Thanks. Activist (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, without prejudice against recreation next month if he wins. As always, candidates are not automatically presumed notable just for being candidates per se, but 12 footnotes (of which one is VoteSmart, a primary source on which every candidate always gets a profile, and one is the raw results of a single public opinion poll, is not enough sourcing to mark him out as more notable than most other candidates. For candidates who haven't already won, the notability tests they have to pass are either "already has preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten them an article anyway" (i.e. the reason why Donald Trump was already notable long before he ever even tried to run for anything, let alone win), or "is receiving so much more coverage than most other candidates that they have a credible claim to being special" (c.f. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez). If he wins the seat, then he'll obviously clear WP:NPOL #1 on that basis and an article will be recreatable — but none of this is already notable enough to already earn him an article today, or to make him permanently notable even if he loses the seat next month. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's a lot of dancing around with BLP1E, NPOL, NOTPROMO, and other arguments. All these are good arguments on their own, but they don't really apply here because the subject passes WP:GNG through the coverage in the news. I don't buy the "one-event" argument because it's not "one" event, there are a series of events. NOTPROMO is a great rule, but any promotional wording can be cleaned up as an editing issue rather than a deletion issue. NPOL is also a good argument, but it is "inclusive" and not "exclusive" (there is more than one path to notability). When it comes down to it, the subject has the coverage for a period of time in reliable third party articles. That's textbook notability. Any other issues can be handled in editing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An election campaign is an event, not a series of discrete events, for the purposes of establishing whether WP:BLP1E applies or not. An event is not just a standalone thing that happens at one time on one day; a process, such as an election campaign, is still an event. A candidate does not escape BLP1E just because he's held more than one campaign rally over the course of the election season, for example — the separate rallies are still operating in the same context of helping to get him elected as each other, so they're still part of the same overarching event rather than separate standalone events that would turn 1E into 2E.

And no, notability is not automatically conferred on every single person who has a handful of media coverage — for example, every single candidate in every single district at either the federal or state levels anywhere in the entire United States could always show at least the same-sized handful of media coverage. So no, the key to making a candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not "some media coverage exists" — because again, some media coverage never, ever doesn't exist — it's "so much more media coverage exists than most other candidates are getting that he's got a credible claim to being special." Which is, needless to say, not what the sourcing here is showing. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A process by definition is more than one event. Wiktionary definition states it is "A series of events which produce a result, especially as contrasted to product" (among other lesser definitions of course).--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The literal dictionary definition of a word (especially on Wiktionary, where people can phrase the definition badly) is not the mic drop on this, because a series of mini-events most certainly can still total up into a single maxi-event. For the purposes of whether a person is a WP:BLP1E or not on Wikipedia, the entire election campaign is a single event, no matter how many different rallies he happens to hold or statements of his positions on the issues he releases during the campaign — because each of those mini-events is not a independently notable event in its own right separately from the overall context of being a candidate, the whole pile of 'em adds up to a single maxi-event for the purposes of whether a person escapes BLP1E or not. The entire election campaign is one maxi-event, not 40 or 50 or 100 separate mini-events, for the purposes of determining whether a person is notable for one event or more than one. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't buy that. The simplest and best definition should be used. WP:BLP1E is policy. WP:BLP2E is not.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't care what you don't buy. There isn't, and shouldn't be, and isn't ever going to be, any Wikipedia consensus that an unelected candidate for office gets into Wikipedia just because each individual campaign rally or speech he makes over the course of a single campaign can technically be considered a separate "incident". All those incidents are part of the same basic notability "event", not five or six or ten distinct notability "events", for the purposes of establishing whether a person is notable enough to have an encyclopedia article or not. An uncontrolled forest fire doesn't become two or three or five separate events just because the fire seems to die down and then flares up again the next day, either — no matter how many distinct "incidents" take place during the overall event, the whole thing is still a single event. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand. I'm not claiming that because the subject is running for office they get an automatic pass to notability. My position is that sufficient third party articles in reliable sources exist to surpass the threshold of the general notability guideline. That can happen when running for office or playing tiddlywinks. Sufficient coverage is sufficient coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever our favored interpretation of campaigns is in the abstract—sustained activity of central importance to the political life of a democracy, or fleeting lead-up to the main election event of actual significance?—we should consider the context of the actual BLP1E guideline. It's a section not of WP:N but of WP:BLP, and specifically the section §Presumption in favor of privacy. The point of that policy is not to police the number of articles Wikipedia has, but to avoid victimizing or libeling individuals with false or excessively personal information. There are very few cases where this consideration is relevant to writing an article about politicians, who are by definition in the business of seeking out public attention and are therefore not low-profile individuals. FourViolas (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Long-standing consensus is candidates that lose campaigns and who are not otherwise notable fail WP:BLP1E. Notability is not temporary, and someone who chooses to run for office and loses will nearly certainly fall out of the public eye, even after the disclosure of some of their personal information. It doesn't matter if WP:GNG is passed - it's only a presumption, and WP:NOT overrides WP:GNG - and we have an alternative to deletion nevertheless. SportingFlyer talk 05:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia is not is certainly policy. What part of that applies here? There are 11 points for content... maybe NOTNEWS, but again the extensive coverage to me seems to well exceed that. Can you reference this "long-standing consensus" you write about? Are there other AFDs? And even then, consensus can change.--Paul McDonald (talk)

There's an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Centralized_discussion_on_the_notability_of_political_candidates about these issues, with lots of background on this issue. FourViolas (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the more notable things about candidate Watkins is his confabulation of his own history. He claims to an entrepreneur who started a large corporation from scratch and sacrificed by choosing to forego his own compensation so that he could keep others employed. In fact, he worked briefly as a consultant for the corporation he claimed he founded, many years after it had successfully operated and the owner had no idea who Watkins was. He claimed that his alleged experience there played an important part in his qualification for office. He repeated and embellished this tall tale at numerous Republican meetings in counties around the district. He claimed on his website (since removed) that he rescued people who had been injured in the 2015 Nepal earthquake, referring confirmation of his alleged heroism to the leader of a concurrent Mt. Everest climbing expedition as citing him for his bravery. When contacted, that leader said it would have been impossible, since they were way up the mountain at the time and not remotely near the carnage in that country or in any position to be of help. He claimed his experience in dog mushing as a credential, but in fact he was at the tail end of the 2018 competitors, days from the finish, when the highest placers had already completed the race. A fellow competitor said that he abandoned his dog team to the care of already overwhelmed strangers who didn't have the capacity to become responsible for them. She said he quit the race so that he could get on the phone to arrange speaking engagements in Kansas. He had been applying for Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend payouts, which require applicants to certify that they intend to remain permanent residents of the state, in order to qualify for the payments, though that information had been removed by an editor here, though it was the basis for his making the "heart in Kansas" remark which remains. So he's perhaps the perfect candidate in a "post truth" era, a 21st Century version of the 18-Century fictional sportsman, military hero and world traveler, Baron Munchausen, or even a Rosie Ruiz, the obese faker who brazenly invented herself as a runner and duped the officials of the Boston Marathon into thinking that she'd won in world record time, when she had only actually jogged half a mile. (She had qualified for Boston by taking the subway to the end of, and faking a high place finish in the New York Marathon. (She has a large Wikipedia article which documents her subsequent fiduciary larceny.) That behavior didn't prevent President Trump from enthusiastically introducing him at a rally in Topeka this past Saturday, and VP Pence for scheduling a followup rally appearance, an irony upon which the Kansas press has acerbically commented. He hasn't claimed any distinguished service awards, as yet, as far as I'm aware, so he isn't a likely candidate for a Stolen Valor prosecution, though he does say he was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Activist (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IFart Mobile[edit]

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

Textbook WP:FART. Do we really need articles like this on the encyclopedia? The sources are either primary, passing mentions, or brief name drops, and a search for them reveals the same. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources describe this software in depth and in detail. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an article clearly relating to WP:FART that is an article based on present trend in gadget apps so fails notability.Vinodbasker (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)*[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blanche Serban[edit]

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

No independent sources in the article, and all I've found are announcements of local exhibits (like [6] [7]) that are insuficient for WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 7 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Alex^TW 03:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons (season 30)[edit]

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

Article needs to be draftified; one aired episode and a single table does not make for a whole article, when the article can be expanded in the draft space and the table can exist at List of The Simpsons episodes. -- Alex^TW 16:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I really don't see why this shouldn't be kept, got all the other season pages, although it's a bit heavy of citations from twitter I am sure it will be populated quickly over the next few weeks and sorted out. WP:GNG isn't quite there. Govvy (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: So, we should only keep it for a... complete set? Populating it is what the draft space is for. -- Alex^TW 16:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Firstly merging makes no sense whatsoever, the content is already listed in that list article!! Secondly, all the previous seasons were never in built in draft space, they were open in main space and this allowed everyone to come and edit it. Govvy (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it's transcluded, not included. There's a difference, I'm happy to link you to the explanation if you don't know what that is. Delete the article and the table won't be in the list anymore, hence the merge. Secondly, "other stuff exists/existed" is not a valid argument, never has been. Notices on talk pages also allow everyone to come and edit it. -- Alex^TW 16:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know it was transcluded, makes even more sense to leave as is to me now and Keep so as not to screw around with what works. Govvy (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There has never been a requirement that a season article has to have more than what this article contains. It's desirable but not mandatory and the proposer has been around long enough to know that. I've supported redirection or deletion of articles that don't meet the minimum that we expect, and I've redirected plenty myself. The general consensus is that season articles have substantial content outside of an episode table or a sourced episode table. The article has a sourced episode table supported by 25 sources so there is no real justification in deleting it. "I don't like it" is not a valid reason to delete. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per AussieLegend (talk · contribs) argument above and general consensus.
Keep per Aussie's explanation above. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason for deletion given. Being a stub isn't a reason for deletion, and we wouldn't draftify an article on the 2018 NFL season because only one game had been played. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – might not be WP:TOOSOON, as there is one episode aired. Now, if it was The Simpsons (season 35) or something like that, then I'd say delete, but I think this is not too far into the future (actually present). ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 20:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable, yet another AfD that is a complete waste of editors' time. I literally spend more time commenting on frivolous AfD's these days than I do actually editing productively. Perhaps something needs to be done to crack down on those who waste everybody's time. Smartyllama (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously an editor who isn't here to contribute, just make accusations,waiting everyone's time. I look forward to citing this AFD for further articles created with a singular table. -- Alex^TW 01:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There will be more episodes added as time goes on. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ongoing season that barring impossible events will continue to air all its episodes. Nate • (chatter) 01:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - season has already started airing, and the rationale provided by the nominator would mean this would back into the article space pretty soon anyway (which would be a total waste of time). This page can and should be worked on in the state its in now. This isn't a case of WP:TOOSOON or anything even close to the sort.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Search Party (company)[edit]

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

Spammy article that does not have any in depth coverage with independant analysis Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sufficient WP:NEXIST there to support GNG. Sadly just another come and go tech upstart. Seems to be mostly very routine industry and finance reporting. Aoziwe (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Company advertisement) MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:48, 9 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 merge to Equanimeous St. Brown. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Osiris St. Brown[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia:CFBNOTE. No notable achievements with so far during his college career. GPL93 (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.GPL93 (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, doesn't meet Wikipedia:CFBNOTE. Marquardtika (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~/Merge (yes, this is essentially the same as I said at his brother's AfD. Obviously I lean keep as I created it, but I'm not super attached to it. I just noticed he didn't have one when I read something about his brother. There's a significant amount of coverage about his family and he's a part of that. Possibly worth an article about the family? Note: I may userfy this if it's closed as delete so it can be recreated when he plays his first NFL game. StarM 00:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: That's not a bad idea, while he is still several years away from draft eligibility for the draft he could also meet notability standards if he has a notable NCAA career, such as being named to an All-America team GPL93 (talk)

Yes definitely agree with your target too. Amended my vote & going to note same on Amon-Ra's StarM 22:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge relevant info Most the information on this page can be moved to the personal life section of his brother's page GPL93 (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep feature articles like this one really point to Notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say the article points more to that his family is notable, not the individual. None of the 5 points in the article focus specifically on Osiris or Amon-Ra. GPL93 (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean "besides the title 5 things to know about the wide receiving St. Brown brothers as Stanford visits Notre Dame", right?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, the brothers, its about the family. Neither one has set any collegiate records, received any notable awards or received notable coverage outside the context of the family or his brother. I believe its a case of WP:TOOSOON and its more appropriate for this information to be included under the personal life section of Equanimeous until they garner more notability individually. GPL93 (talk) 20:50, 8 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 Nomination Withdrawn. Based on new sourcing and information, I am withdrawing my nomination. (non-admin closure) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

East London Central Synagogue[edit]

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

Sadly, I am nominating this article. I don't see any claims of notability other than it being in the East End. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the creator of this page's draft, I naturally favour its being kept, though I've never read the notability rules for religious establishments, and would appreciate being pointed in the right direction. My reasons for feeling the synagogue to be notable were this: London's East End was once a hugely concentrated area of British Jewry, largely constituted of first generation immigrants. There were at least 150 synagogues plus uncounted smaller shteibls. Of these, only three remain, the East London Central Synagogue the only purpose-built one. I believe the sheer fact of its survival gives it notability: it is one of the few remnants of physical evidence of a once huge community. From an architectural point of view, it is the only example left of the synagogues built by a community that had a different character to Britain's established Jewish community. Best wishes almost-true 18:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We should not be putting referenced articles this new up at AfD. Ever. If they're obviously not viable, we have CSD. Placing them into a deletion process which itself will need a period twice as long as the article has been around for is ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a notable entity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per other keeps above. No way should we deleting this content even if worst case we felt best to merge it. I've added a reference and image to help it along a little.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For all those voting keep, where exactly is the notability on this article? This is not about the East End, this is about a specific synagogue and the article has zero reasons for notability. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need notability. It needs enough possibility of it to pass CSD. If it still can't show notability in a week or two, then AfD it then. But jumping on brand new articles when there's no reason to delete other than maybe they aren't adequately notable - that's not a useful or constructive action (see international press this week) and it's particularly discouraging to new editors who've had their first work canned like this. Let alone when there's already a project discussion going on about this very article.

Also, how far did you get through BEFORE before you AfDed this? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article was AFC'ed, so it already went through some vetting. This article was also then discussed at JUDAISM where some feedback was given, but still the article shows no notability. You have failed to show a policy based reason for keeping. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a reasonable number of references from independent sources to establish notability. Furthermore, for an institution this old, there are very likely plenty of earlier references which will not be online. Rathfelder (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is authentic and satisfies the notability WP:NBUILD and is also an ancient building with good sources available.Vinodbasker (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)*[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even article condition at time of AfD [8], only a couple of days after article creation, should not have been considered for AfD. The article already had in-depth references and more had been added since the AfD began. The nom could've put a request for more sources. AfD is a last resort, not for knee-jerk measures after a quick cursory look at the article. --Oakshade (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've continued to work on this, adding detail and sources, including a good estimation of its architectural qualites from Pevsner, all of which I hope support the various strands of its claim to notability almost-true 12:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's in Pevsner, why are we even talking about it? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:56, 8 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Routine (Alan Walker and David Whistle song)[edit]

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

Non-notable single. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Flooded with them hundreds 14:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. Didn't chart on notable music charts or receive significant critical attention. No plausible redirect target, since it's a collaboration. — Newslinger talk 10:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K2 Global[edit]

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

A directory like listing on an unremarkable venture fund. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Bitpk with no other contributions outside this topic. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advert, refs are business listings and news surrounding the founding. Szzuk (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 14:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bump the Show[edit]

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

Tagged as poorly sourced since forever. I can't find any evidence that this was ever considered significant. Guy (Help!) 08:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of reliable coverage here. Almost all sources attached are questionable at best, showing comments section or blogs, or even dead redirected sites. It isn't even stated where did it air, if did. WP:TVSHOW and WP:GNG not satisfied. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 14:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annaliese Nock[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and never made it past auditions on the show. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one appearance on a TV show does not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 14:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 4 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. If anyone would like the article userfied, let me know Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of ambassadors of Malaysia to East Timor[edit]

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

Listcruft TheLongTone (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See List of ambassadors of China to East Timor, List of ambassadors of the United States to East Timor and List of ambassadors of the United Kingdom to East Timor. Do you consider these three articles as WP:LISTCRUFT? Panji Keramat (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly do. See WP:OTHERSTUFF TheLongTone (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia has a resident ambassador to East Timor. Does meet WP:LISTN. Panji Keramat (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean a list is ipso facto notable because it has content? I'm writing list of pimples on my curvy pink butt as I speak.TheLongTone (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 12:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a deletion rationale, just a WP:VAGUEWAVE to a grab-bag essay that offers no helpful or specific guidance. East Timor–Malaysia relations is an obvious merge target, so even if it were decided not to maintain a standalone list there is an obvious place for this verifiable and relevant information to go. The closer can read that as a "keep per WP:ATD" if they like. postdlf (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to East Timor–Malaysia relations. We don't need a standalone list to list 4 names. No WP:LISTN coverage in WP:RS has been presented. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 14:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject isn't notable. The list contains only red-links to NN entries. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find evidence that the people on the list are notable, and as such there's no purpose served by having a list of them. Furthermore, even if the entries were worthwhile information, there is certainly not enough of it to justify a standalone article. Vanamonde (talk) 20:16, 12 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pcb-rnd[edit]

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

Listing for an non-notable software package. Was nominated for PROD, an editor removed the tag after adding "independent sources". However, these sources consisted of a citation to another wiki page, links to software package listings on servers, and coverage at "Hackaday"., a tech blog. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defending: this is the only active descendant of the original (quite notable) software package (gEDA pcb). pcb-rnd is in very active development across the last five years. For example, its data model is a superset of all known free/libre competitors, as it provides means to import their formats (netlists, board design data), which is a very strong and unique feature. More to say, pcb-rnd developers are in process of forming a full-featured FLOSS EDA ecosystem, building bridges and data-flows to other EDA packages. Regarding "independent sources" argument: the article about another electronics-related project of similar scale have no independent references at all, but was never nominated for deletion. We are all devoting our spare time to support FLOSS movement (by writing code, docs, articles). So lets improve and promote them, rather than hiding and deleting related articles from community. 185.254.139.42 (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, notability per WP:N [9] for inclusion as this software is a subject of instruction in universities. Miloh (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a citation supporting this claim that it's a subject of instruction? The article itself doesn't make that claim, and while I see that apparently it was at least partly developed as part of a thesis project, "subject of instruction" generally means that there are entire courses devoted to it (or that at least use it heavily). I don't think being the subject of a master's thesis quite satisfies that criterion on its own, and a Google Scholar search for the package-name doesn't return much. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the citation in question is for a 79 page thesis paper published by the university, not an article. I've read it, it's in my field of expertise. Check the conclusion, figure 2-7, and page 22. For credit or lab classwork towards EE and CE degrees, EDA capture and layout tools including pcb-rnd are taught (although the software was not developed as part of thesis project though, this is incorrect). While the page will need more citations, this criteria should meet WP:N for software. Also, per 'Nominating for Deletion' [10] there's a note to "be sure to verify the page is non-notable, not just missing citations", even so, the page went to AfD without sending a message to the page creator asking for clarification. Let's remove AfD and add a refimprove template for the page. Miloh (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is worth noting that wikipedia and pcb-rnd have similar goals, namely, data preservation. pcb-rnd is the only FLOSS EDA software package actively implementing support for legacy file formats such as eagle binary, protel autotrax and so forth, which will help to preserve the digital legacy stored on old media but no longer accessible to those engaged in digital archaeology, preservation of hardware and preservation of older technology generally. Eliminating references to pcb-rnd on wikipedia diminishes the efforts of community driven efforts to preserve knowledge. I donate to wikipedia because I believe in keeping information accessible to all comers. I donate time to pcb-rnd for the same reasons (16 September 2018). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.20.127 (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 14:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to PCB (software), which will enhance that article and preserve encyclopedic content (WP:ATD-M). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 12 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 merge to Guardian Media Group#History. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian Monthly[edit]

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

This is an 11 year old article about a magazine that only lasted for 8 months from 2006 to 2007. It has no references to establish notability, and its official website no longer exists (it just redirects to the Guardian's home page). – numbermaniac 05:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 13:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It didn't last, but the industry trade publications discussed it when it was around. At a minimum, the content could be preserved by merging to, e.g., Guardian Media Group#History. XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Guardian Media Group § History as per WP:ATD-M. The suggested merge target only has a link in the See also section, so merging will make that article more complete, and better. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 14:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Northamerica1000. I don't think a short-lived magazine without any significant impact can have its own article as the article is unlikely to be expanded. Content can be merged to another article, but omit the quote (a simple statement that it had been cancelled would suffice). Hzh (talk) 15:08, 5 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 merge to Deepika (newspaper). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rashtra Deepika[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, only one source and it's simply a directory of various newspapers. Waggie (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge There's an obvious alternative to deletion – merger to Deepika (newspaper) – which is the parent morning edition. We prefer this per our editing policy, WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with a merge. As a side note, I've removed the unsourced and promotional content from Deepika (newspaper). Waggie (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 14:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Deepika (newspaper); a fine WP:ATD-M option. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the WP:GNG per WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, and WP:NEXIST. See also parallel nominations of Indian newspapers, all clearly failing WP:BEFORE. gidonb (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC) Merge. See below. gidonb (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gidonb, you keep saying I've failed to do WP:BEFORE, but strangely enough, I did. I'd appreciate if you would stop making unsubstantiated remarks like this. I'm trying to improve the encyclopedia here, as presumably you are. Could we keep this professional and courteous, please? Also, would you please point out the WP:SIGCOV and such that you refer to? Thanks! Waggie (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind seeing said sources either. Perhaps they may sway my opinion away from a merge...or maybe not. Without being able to assess the sources stated as existent, I'll stick with merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. In this case merger is in order. I'll take the sources that I collected over to Deepika (newspaper). gidonb (talk) 05:43, 11 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. Vanamonde (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atisha Pratap Singh[edit]

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

While surely a nice person, they just aren't notable. Even going back to an older version (August 1) before an IP removed a fair amount of details, there just isn't enough. They may qualify under NSPORT in the future, but not right now. Ravensfire (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article does not even say anything about her that would suggest she is notable by any interpretation of the term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Notability is not inherited. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 22:36, 9 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 merge to SD Compostela. Vanamonde (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sociedad Deportiva Compostela (1962-2006)[edit]

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

This article was created to reflect a purely legal and financial situation and in my opinion is an invalid though good faith WP:CONTENTFORK but I am not 100% sure. The club was in financial turmoil and was dissolved. The former president immediately formed a new club then bought the name of the old club and renamed the new club the same as the dissolved club using the same logo strip stadium and players. There are several other articles about clubs that were reformed in a similar manner such as Newport County A.F.C.. I believe that the best way to treat this is with a merge to the history section. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are completely different societies. If it was valid to leave a club fall with a huge debt and create a new one taking all the credits (trophies, records, etc.), it would be a lack of respect with other teams that pay their players and suppliers. The new team had another name (Campus Stellae) when bought, then the former owner buys at the court auction of the dissolved team the name and changes the old name... Come on ! They are NOT the same club, they just have the same name (like New York Cosmos, for example)--Banderas (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Banderas (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Comment Thé actual club makes no distinction in its history between the before 2006 and after 2006 and actually traces their history back to 1929. here. The sources are what matter not our personal opinions. We must not use wikipedia to right great wrongs Dom from Paris (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's a valid fork - these are two separate teams, and we deal with these differently in different parts of the world (Vancouver Whitecaps, for instance, versus an Italian team since the Italian teams go bankrupt seemingly at will.) That being said, even if I'm incorrect, there's no possible reason to delete this - this should have been a merge request. SportingFlyer talk 21:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was a copy paste and cut from another article. The content was already in the original article until it was removed otherwise I would have suggested a merge. The sources do not treat this as 2 separate teams so there is no need for 2 articles. What I'm suggesting is to go back to the status quo of an article that had been stable for 12 years. This was a very very bold move that seems to be more motivated by personal dislike than any source based information. It would be interesting to see how the Spanish football association treat the club. If they consider it as a club formed in 2006 then that would be a good argument. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the Vancouver whitecaps and they had a 2 year period where they did not exist and then played for 14 years under another name so I don't think this is a fair comparison at all. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think it's a fair comparison to compare a team that went under and restarted (in MLS) with nearly the same ownership? Vancouver Whitecaps (disambiguation) In any case, the Spanish Wikipedia has the current club being founded in 2006, and a separate article for the defunct team: [11] - and the current owner paid €61,000 for the trophies of the old club. SportingFlyer talk 22:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope not if there was a 14 year break in the use of the name. Please also remember that wiipedia is not a source. We should rely on what reliable sources use. If sources consider that it is the same club then so should we despite what has been decided on other projects or done on other pages Dom from Paris (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understand my point - I'm talking specifically about the gap between the USL team in 2010 and MLS in 2011, not about the 14-year gap between the original team and the second team. But it's not a big deal. What's important is sources don't consider this the same club - the Spanish-language sources clearly note this team declared bankruptcy and had their trophies purchased back - and while I agree Wikipedia isn't a source, the Spanish-language wikipedia generally has better information on Spanish clubs than we have in English, so the fact they've segregated the clubs carries at least some weight. SportingFlyer talk 05:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok no it wasn't clear what you were referring to but as you say it doesn't really matter what is umpoimpor is the sources. Do you have access to any reliable sources that specifically say that the 2 clubs are not considered the same, the Spanish FA for example, or specialised sporting sources? The articles are seriously undersourced as it is. This article contains no references or links to the "new" club which seems to be very inappropriate and seeing the comments by the article creator a deliberate move. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check this one out, where the new club was considered to have bought the "brand" of the old club and was not liable for its debts. Clearly different clubs: [12] SportingFlyer talk 07:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But what is interesting is that it says "se adjudicó la gestión deportiva de los equipos de fútbol de la SD Compostela SAD en liquidación", which according to google translate means ""was awarded the sports management of the football teams of the SD Compostela SAD in liquidation," which for me clearly shows that the teams continued under a different name. I think we really need to see what the Spanish FA say about this club. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear from the period articles the first team went bankrupt, a second team was founded (Campus Stellae) which then bought the name from the liquidated team, then there was a legal battle to try to get the new team to assume the debts of the old team, and the legal challenge failed. You also have this article, which explains the situation: new club formed by the old directors: [13] SportingFlyer talk 09:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's common to have separate articles when clubs go bust and are new ones are founded with the same name (see e.g. Airdrieonians F.C. (1878), Accrington Stanley F.C. (1891) etc. Topic is therefore notable but should be moved to SD Compostela (1962) in line with standard naming conventions. Giant Snowman 07:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back per MYS77 and Quite A Character below. Giant Snowman 07:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every specialist football source that I have found state that they were formed in 1962 and not 2006 and they consider the actual club and the old club are one and the same. Soccerway transfermarkt monde du foot world football les sports. By forking the content and stating that the actual club was formed in 2006 this is WP:OR or at best a WP:SYNTH of the sources. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, some of those may have used the content from the old Wikipedia article. I don't really trust any of those sources. SportingFlyer talk 09:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So which source do you base your !vote on? Dom from Paris (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep We have plenty or reformed clubs, I don't see a why this is consisted a content fork, however there is a serious issue of sources for both articles. That does need addressing but the two clubs do seem to pass WP:FOOTYN. Govvy (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources to back up the fact that they are considered 2 distinct clubs? All the sources I have been able to find state the opposite. Just because there are other articles on reformed clubs doesn't make this correct. The Spanish justice system stated that the new club was awarded the management of the actual teams and all the specialist sources state that the club was founded in 1962 and not 2006. if we leave the other article as it is the date of founding is not backed up by the sources. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That dependant on how you want to archive the information we have on wikipedia. Yes you can combine the two era's into one article. Financially they are considered two different organisations, if the new club is combining the history from the previous incarnation, maybe they should be merged. Govvy (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the club itself but every source that I have been able to find state the actual club having been formed in 1962 and lists their competition history from that date to today. They are considered as 2 different organisations for financial reasons only but as a sporting entity there is continuity as backed up by the sources. So IMHO this fork is not warranted. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - pinging Spanish football experts @MYS77 and Quite A Character: for their take/sources - are these two separate clubs or not? Giant Snowman 09:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - another comment to make it clear that they are different teams: in the 2005-06 season, BOTH teams competed. Former SD Compostela competes in the Preferente Autonómica de Galicia, while the new team (still named SD Campus Stellae), competes in the Tercera Autonómica de Galicia.--Banderas (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can both teams have competed if SD Compostela was dissolved and SD Campus Stellae was created after the dissolution? Was it the same players that played for both teams? If they were competing at exactly the same time then yes it is 2 teams but if it was the same players competing under a different name then it is the same club with a different name. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SD Campus Stellae was not created after the dissolution. It was established in 2004 and started competing in 2005. They had nothing in common until SD Campus Stellae changed names, crest, etc in 2007-08. Each team had their own players.--Banderas (talk) 11:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so what I can understand from the El Correo article above is that Campus Stellae "compró en el proceso de liquidación solamente el nombre y los equipos del Compostela, y que eso no añadía asumir sus deudas" or if google translate is to be believed they "bought in the liquidation process only the name and teams of Compostela, and that did not include their debts" which means that the teams and the name did not disappear but were held by Campus Stellae which was then renamed CD Compostela. This means that the teams carried on playing under another name for a short period (do you know how long?) but retained their history back to 1962. From what I can gather it was CD Compostela SAD that went into liquidation. This SAD was created in 1992 in compliance with Spanish law but retained the history of the former entity which I presume was a kind of non commercial association. If this SAD could inherite the history of the former entity why can't this be carried on when the teams and name are bought by another SAD? This seems to be the position of the actual club and the different sources I have found. What I can't seem to find is the Spanish FA's position on the club. If they give a date for formation then in my view there is no debate at all. If they say 2006 I will happily withdraw my nomination but if they say 1962 then it should be a clear delete and remerge of the information removed. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What they bought in the court auction were "los derechos deportivos" (besides name and brands), that is, the spots in the leagues left by the dissolved society (SAD). Not the teams, but their rights to play in Preferente league. S.D. Campus Stellae, established in 2004, changed names and kept playing, while SD Compostela, established 1962, was dissolved. They have different register number in the Federation, of course. I forgot to explain the other question: the conversion from "club" to "SAD" in 1992 was mandatory for all professional clubs and was just a legal shareholders system change of the same society (same ID -CIF in Spain-). Nothing to do with establishing a new club (SD Campus Stellae) and later change his name for another name previously used by another club (different IDs).--Banderas (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back: proper historical approach consider the actual SD Compostela the same club as the "historical" SD Compostela. Fútbol Regional, ArefePedia, La Futbolteca and even the official website consider the "old" Compostela the same club as the "new" one. MYS 77 ^✉ 15:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct approach, IMO, would be dividing the season-by-season, detailing the differences in the "history" section, but keeping all the content at SD Compostela only. RCD Mallorca B was founded as UD Collerense, but the club was "separated" from Mallorca and formed a new club. Still, all their seasons before the separation are added into Mallorca B's article. CF Platges de Calvià was founded in 1990, but in 2016 merged with CD Montuiri, and the original club became its B-side (very confusing indeed); the historical websites add Montuiri's historical seasons to the "new" Platges de Calvià, while their seasons before 2016 are linked to the B-team. MYS 77 ^✉ 15:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the links you mention (La Futbolteca), states clearly:

Fecha de constitución: 2004 (establishement year)
Fecha de federación: 2007 (football federation member since)

If you are going to believe official websites, then Malaga CF was established in 1904... (totally false).--Banderas (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a merge is very different from a bankruptcy/refounding, or a refounding generally. Like the Whitecaps MLS team, which is different than their USL team, they assumed the old team's intellectual property. I think the new Whitecaps try to claim they're one of the oldest soccer clubs in Canada as well! SportingFlyer talk 20:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, according to both articles, both teams played in the 2005-06 season. SportingFlyer talk 20:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Banderas: "Official websites are totally false"... okay then. I think this is enough to answer this thread. The user who did this claims that official websites are, like he said, totally false. Do I have to say anything more than that? MYS 77 ^✉ 22:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MYS77: I didn´t say all official websites have false information, but some do, like Málaga CF's site (the one I mentioned as an example), where they claim to have been established in 1904. If you also think Málaga CF can be considered the same team as CD Malaga, and founded in 1904, I understand you considering SD Campus Stellae the same team as SD Compostela. No problem, but we don´t agree.--Banderas (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of the links you provided, futbol-regional.es has incorrect information, and the other one appears to be a -pedia. Furthermore, clubs at times aren't the best sources of their own history - see Dinamo Zagreb for another example of appropriated history. What we do know is - at the time the old club went bankrupt, the new club was already playing and bought their brand. SportingFlyer talk 09:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I didn't see the incorrect info in that website. Can you please point me some? And I didn't explain the true context of Spanish football clubs to you guys, who (I believe) are more used to English football. SD Compostela's board declared the club bankrupt and started the liquidation process in 2004. In that very same year, knowing that the club would be dissolved soon, they just created a "new club" (more like a proxy, in my opinion) to continue the "legacy" of Compostela without having to pay their debts. If you take a look at some other clubs (like Málaga CF for an example), it somehow happens quite normally in Spain, where the "new club" "inherits" the history of the older one. And yes, it's impossible for both clubs to play in the same division under the same name, that's why they created the club as Campus Stellae.

This article from Marca states that "Campus Stellae recovered the name and the rights of its antecessor through a public auction". In my point of view, this states that the "new club" obtained the rights and the name (bringing back the history) of the old club. MYS 77 ^✉ 17:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Banderas: That's because Málaga CF's board won an auction to give their past history to the "new club", which means that the "new club" can use this information legally. The same thing happened with Campus Stellae, which means that the RFEF will associate both clubs as one (even though they still have different IDs), that's why the legal challenge was taken later to make the "new club" pay the older club's debts. This article from La Voz de Galicia says that "Pero el proceloso concurso del Compos ha sido tan singular que el equipo sigue compitiendo, aunque sea en Preferente y con la denominación de Campus Stellae. (But the stormy contest of Compos has been so singular that the team is still playing, even though it is in the Preferente and under the name of Campus Stellae.)". In my opinion, Spanish football laws can be very confusing and unclear, but I honestly don't think separating both clubs would do any good or would be correct. MYS 77 ^✉ 17:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MYS77: That's not so. Malaga's teams are and always will be different. No legal issue there. LFP makes it clear (2 teams, Malaga CF and CD Malaga in the listings), no matter what they claim on their website. Compostela's case is a little different as they bought the old brands, but, again, different teams under all means . --Banderas (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Banderas: Still can't agree to your points (as you can't agree with mine as well xD). MYS 77 ^✉ 19:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's even more confusing is it seems Campus Stellae played for a few seasons in the fifth division under the name Campus Stellae, even after they purchased the SD Compostela name. SportingFlyer talk 23:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong but as they seem to have kept the name for the women's team would they not have kept the name for the teams already playing in lower divisions?. This may also explain why both teams were playing in the same division, a sort of A team and B team? Dom from Paris (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: The womens team was created years later. In 2005-06 they were totally independent clubs, as they have always been, SD Campus Stellae played at the lowest league (Tercera Autonómica), as it was their first playing season, while SD Compostela played at Preferente Autonómica after relegation.--Banderas (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back: what @MYS77: said, word for word. --Quite A Character (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with the outcome, but a somewhat similar situation was discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_109#Darlington_F.C. SportingFlyer talk 09:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge After the comments and reviewing the articles, I think merge is the best way forward. Govvy (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also want to note there is no consensus on how to deal with this: while Darlington was merged back when they changed their name, other phoenix clubs with the same name (Maidstone United, Accrington Stanley) have their own articles. My strong opinion is to treat the clubs separately, especially since they played the 2004-05(?) season as separate teams. SportingFlyer talk 23:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all clubs have to be dealt with on an ad hoc basis. From what I can gather Maidstone was forced out of the league and the teams could no longer participate in the competitions which is (from what I can gather) not the case for this club. So Maidstone as a league club ceased to exist so logically 2 pages seems appropriate. The new Accrington Stanley club was formed 2 years after the demise of the old club they play in a different stadium, on their web site they do not claim to have inherited the previous seasons and honours they only talk about the name being one of the oldest in English football this is not really comparable to the subject of this AfD. Looking for aawiki-wide consensus in very different situations seems quite futile. Each article has to be written as per the sources and not as per other seemingly similar articles. I think the fact that they both played in the same season is a red herring because Campus Stellae existed before they bought the rights to SD Compostela teams and their places in the different competitions. It seems impossible for the same team to have potentially played against themself under 2 different names. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:20, 7 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. Lourdes 16:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Insurance company Limited[edit]

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

Directory listings and nothing significant in coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: If the company has 3000 employees, would that make it notable? BeŻet (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly consensus can change, but if you're renominating after 8 months, you'd do well to put some effort to rebutting the keep arguments of last AfD; and the businessrecorder source mentioned last time is reasonably significant, meeting WP:NCORP standards. That plus what appears to be another significant profile (though I cannot access it) and that the location of the company means that sources are often not going to very easily googleable pushes me to keep Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment insurance companies aren't known for being particularly public-facing. I don't see anything other than a directory entry here, for a very "fake-sounding" name. This needs a rename/move (is Bibojee Group a thing? Or else Universal Insurance Co. (Lahore). Some input from Pakistani editors would be helpful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; just a promotional directory listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail to meet the criteria for establishing notability. The Business Recorder reference mentioned above has no journalist listed and appears to be a company profile generated from various reports and company announcements with no indications of intellectually independent analysis/opinion as is required. Also, two references are required from difference sources. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will ask for Galobtter's source at RX
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 13:19, 4 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. Vanamonde (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regality theory[edit]

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

The article appears to have been created by the author of the theory, and while published in academic journals, they're ones of low impact, and in particular, this subject doesn't seem to have any other authors cite or reference it. I believe it's a pet theory, not really approaching the level of established utility that warrants encyclopedia coverage. Upon further consideration: I think WP:FRINGE is the relevant guideline. i kan reed (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not necessarily fringe, but it is original research. Fog's papers have few/zero citations and I can't find anyone else discussing the topic, at least not under that name. Until the work is assessed by independent scholars, it doesn't belong here. WP:GNG is not met as the only in-depth source is Fog thus failing the requirement for multiple in-depth sources. SpinningSpark 22:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep. "original research" is defined as material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. The article is citing four primary sources and two secondary sources dealing with precisely the theory of the article, and many other sources dealing with closely related theories. All the sources are in well respected peer-reviewed journals or by well reputed book publishers. The article is serious, and not promotional. The work has indeed been assessed by independent scholars, cited in the article, who find it important and useful. Agnerf (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even looked at it? I think this is a very interesting theory and it tells a lot about the world today. It has a lot of applications that are documented with many examples from around the world. This is more important in my opinion than counting references. I think it should stay on wikipedia. Fabio Donatini. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.146.216.31 (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have looked at it. I don't think my concerns above reflect an absence of understanding, just concern about the encyclopedic value of it. There's a lot of papers out there that posit interesting theory, with some kind of archetypal analysis. Such conventions become things that should be documented in an encyclopedia when they are either cited frequently and reused broadly within a field, or become part of pop-psychology and are used widely within lay discussion. i kan reed (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~. I have added six more secondary references. I hope this satisfies your requirements. Thanks for relisting. Agnerf (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck your keep. You can't !vote twice. SpinningSpark 13:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is challenging the quality of your sources (although the recently added item from WikiWikiWeb is probably not peer reviewed and dubious RS). The objection to this article is that the term "regality theory" is used only by Fog. The rest of the sources do not use it, even by way of saying Fog has such a theory, so the accusation is that the use of these sources is OR by way of WP:SYNTH. Can you counter this with a single source that is not associated with Fog that directly uses the term "regality theory" and gives a definition of it. If not, at the very least the article is misnamed, but probably not suitable for a general encyclopaedia at all because it has not yet become notable enough to be discussed widely by scholars (or anybody). SpinningSpark 14:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ None of the discussion or changes so far has prompted me to change my original assessment, and I don't know, I'd like to be explicit that I do vote delete. i kan reed (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking that !vote as well to be fair in my strikes. The convention is that your nomination is taken as your delete !vote. If you still have a burning desire to bold your recommendation, put it there. SpinningSpark 17:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that the varying names for the theory was the problem. The theory is called "Cultural r/k theory" and similar terms in previous publications. I have added a comment about this in the history section now. I will suggest making a redirection from "Cultural r/k theory" and "Cultural r/k selection" to Regality theory. Agnerf (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost every hit on scholar for that term was published by Fog, so same question, different name. The only one that isn't is an unpublished dissertation. Ph.D dissertations are taken as reliable sources here once they have been published. At the moment we are not meeting the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability for independent reliable sources. Papers written by Fog are not independent of a theory by Fog (perfectly ok for verifying facts, but they don't add to notability). SpinningSpark 08:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article now has eight independent secondary sources. How many do you need? Agnerf (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which of those eight (links would be helpful) have in-depth discussion of the topic of this article? SpinningSpark 18:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mainly Van Schaik (2018), Tylor (2018), Tyler (2011) p. 73f + 292f. Agnerf (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Having gone to the trouble of obtaining the first source mentioned, I find it is not an independent piece of research at all, but a book review. A book review of a book authored by Fog. I'm done with looking at this one now. This page is a classic example of why conflicted editors should not write about themselves, or their own research, on Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 22:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry if there are different understandings of what is relevant. I think that a discussion and evaluation of the theory by a professional in the form of a book review is very relevant in the context where it appears.Agnerf (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep. What I love about wikipedia is that I can find relevant things here that I haven't been able to learn about from other online sources. On wikipedia I can find specialized things that aren't easily available elsewhere, and aren't part of common knowledge. That's one of the things that makes wikipedia so much more useful than previous print encyclopedias - its breadth, depth and scope. Another great thing about wikipedia is that its able to put all this knowledge in such a user friendly format, with pages linked to all other relevant pages. These things illustrate why I think the regality theory page should be kept. To me, the regality theory page illustrates what I love most about wikipedia relative to other sources. I didn't know that regality theory existed. I saw the link from the authoritarian personality page. The regality theory page was written so I could grasp its ideas rapidly even though I'm not in that field, and I found it extraordinarily relevant to what I was looking for. Only on wikipedia could this have happened.

Furthermore, the main argument for deletion is that it was created by the author of the theory. Some topics are so specialized that very few people are expert enough to create a wikipedia page for them, and those who are expert enough might have professional burdens that limit the time and inclination to edit wikipedia. So I think a case can be made for allowing the author of a specialized theory to create a wikipedia page for it under certain circumstances: if the article is clear and coherent to the nonexpert, and if there are relevant crosslinks to other wikipedia pages. I understand that you want to weed out hokey pet theories that have no soundness to them except in the authors eyes. I'll just put in my 2 cents that, to my reading of regality theory, it is more of an integration of other established theories into one meta-theory. Regality theory shows how all this other knowledge fits together into one coherent whole. There's nothing hokey about it. In fact, the statistical analysis in the referenced book (which I only knew about because of wikipedia) looks like it must make this one of the most statistically sound theory in all of social sciences. So those are all the reasons I recommend keeping it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wagersmith (talk • contribs) 17:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - This is my first time commenting on something that's up for deletion. While it is a good 'meta' gathering of related theories(Terror Management Theory, Neuropolitics, Moral foundations theory, etc.) I feared when I first read it maybe weeks ago that it counted as 'Original Research' and would/should be deleted unfortunately according to the guidelines. Maybe it could be Merged into an article that sums up said related theories. There is a 'Political psychology' article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenoC (talk • contribs) 17:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with similar theories. I accept that no consensus can be reached here. There are now two votes for delete, three for keep, and one for merge. Therefore, I will make the following proposal.

There are several other theories of cultural dimensions that make similar findings based on very different research traditions. We can make a larger article that explains these different theories under a common heading such as cultural dimensions theories. Relevant theories that might be included are:

Tight and loose cultures. This theory is briefly mentioned under Michele J. Gelfand who has a new book out on the topic, but it is an old theory that has been studied by many others.
Cultural values, such as traditional versus secular-rational values, survival versus self-expression values, etc. This is mentioned under Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world - an article with a narrow and limited focus.
Authoritarianism versus egalitarianism. The article on authoritarianism describes it as a type of government, while the article on egalitarianism treats is as a political philosophy. There is no description of these two as opposite cultural trends.
Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory. This has its own page, and is also mentioned under Power distance. The Globe Study should also be mentioned.
Shalom H. Schwartz's cultural dimensions, including Hierarchy versus egalitarianism, are not mentioned in Wikipedia.
Cultural harshness versus softness. This theory is not covered by Wikipedia.
Trompenaars' model of national culture differences
Peter Turchin's theory of cultural asabiyya is briefly mentioned under Peter Turchin.
Regal versus kungic cultures, or regality theory. A short version of the present text.

Such an article would have significant encyclopedic value by providing an overview of the different theories, and discuss overlaps and differences between these. The Cambridge Handbook of Culture has such an overview, though more narrow [[14]]. I think Wikipedia should have it as well, of course without copying from the Cambridge Handbook of Culture.

This is in line with StevenoC's proposal, though I think his proposed overview-article will be too broad. But there could be links from the topics he mentions. Agnerf (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would involve writing an entirely new article. I doubt that the closing admin will offer an opinion on that as it is not germane to this deletion discussion. My opinion is that only dualities discussed in sources giving an overview and identifying them as belonging to the group should be included. SpinningSpark 12:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a Google Scholar search for "regal kungic" (without quotes) gives 6 papers, all by Agner Fog. I assume that Agnerf is that person. Regal/kalyptic gives similar results. The ties to other research such as that of Peter Turchin appears to be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH; I don't think Fog's research is mentioned by Turchin. This should be deleted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The theory is cited by (now) ten secondary sources mentioned, mostly under names such as "cultural r/k selection theory" (but not under "regal kungic"). It is discussed and evaluated in a book review by van Schaik, discussed and further elaborated by Tyler (2011 and 2014), and applied to various areas of research by Rominek, Vidal, and Bloom.

There are no notability guidelines for scientific theories. WP:Notability_(books)#Academic_and_technical_books: "most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice." WP:Notability#General_notability_guideline "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." My vote is keep or merge. Agnerf (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North America, I think it is time to close the discussion and make a decision. There is no point in repeating the same arguments. Thank you for your patience. Agnerf (talk) 08:44, 12 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. The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet and in the absence of any other arguments for deletion, I’m closing as ‘keep’. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arabs in Finland[edit]

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

~~No reference, encyclopedic value. Fails WP:GNG. Pollock's (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)~~ Striking nomination by sockpuppet: WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can I ask if you did WP:BEFORE? Immigration of others to countries like Finland is definitely an easily-sourceable topic where statistics can bare-minimum source this article (a search for "arabic finlanders" found this for instance to support the language count claim). It feels like this article is underwritten and all it needs is some more sources. Nate • (chatter) 22:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The lack of WP:BEFORE extends to not even looking in the article itself. It does indeed have a source for the number of Arabic speakers, which is the only actual fact in the article. SpinningSpark 23:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See "‘Finland’s no good:’ Disappointed migrants turn back", Arab News; "Thousands of Iraqi refugees leave Finland voluntarily", Reuters. SpinningSpark 17:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep source in the article, with those found by others here and in a quick search shows that this easily passes GNG. LittlePuppers (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Immigration to Finland if only listed source can be rescued. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 01:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. Per sourcing. Google search gives plenty of useful results as well for expansion.BabbaQ (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep generaly support keep reasons above. Fairly new with expansion, similar to a set of articles "ethnic group in country". Potential for merge options by grouping ethic group or by a set of countries, but possibility best to delay merge until various articles stable, no need to rush a merge.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. John de Britto Institute[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, largely based on the own website and related sources The Banner talk 17:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete two-year old school with no independent sources found in search. Product of promotional editing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep teacher training college of higher education, with verifying references, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A tertiary teacher training college, even if it is relatively small. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a real teacher training college.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - recognised tertiary institution. Searching on Instituto São João de Brito as well as the English name brings up enough sources to meet WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 22:26, 11 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Webb (child actor)[edit]

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

Only attribution is to IMDb. Former child actor whose only claims to fame are minor roles in three TV shows. CallyMc (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one role does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I don't even see any asserted significance; this appears to be either a subunit of a bank or the chapter of a union that operates within a bank. Either way, it meets the CSD A7 criteria. Note that this deletion is entirely based on the article failing to meet standards, not on the request of the SPA. —C.Fred (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanalakshmi Bank Officers Organization[edit]

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

I do not see why the organization is notable, and the only reference is down. (Note that there is an SPA claiming the organization uses the name of the bank which is not authorized by the trademark - which may or may not be correct). Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chã de Areia. There's good consensus here that none of these qualify for stand-alone articles. I'm going to redirect per User:Caballero1967 and WP:ATD. It's not entirely clear if this is the correct redirect target for all of these; if there's a better target for some, please be WP:BOLD and fix it. If it turns out there's no good redirect target for some, ping me and we'll figure something out. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avenida de Cuba[edit]

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

Article created by Terriffic Dunker Guy, a sockpuppet of blocked user:Pumpie, about a non-notable street in Cape Verde. Markussep ^Talk 19:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they're about similar streets in Praia and Mindelo, Cape Verde, and have all been created by Terriffic Dunker Guy:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cape Verde. Markussep ^Talk 11:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Avenida de Cuba, Rua Argelia, Avenida Charles Darwin, Rua Patrice Lumumba and Rampa Sao Januario seem to have received enough coverage to be notable. In any event, deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R because any verifiable place can be merged/redirected to a broader area in which it is located. James500 (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only coverage I’ve seen was in addresses of hotels, guesthouses etc. That doesn’t make a street notable IMO, but maybe you have found better coverage. The streets exist, that’s not the problem. They could be merged into articles about the neighbourhoods they are in (these exist, e.g. Plateau (Praia)), but there isn’t much content in the articles that’s worth keeping, w.r.t. significance and verifiability. Markussep ^Talk 17:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that a total of five articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These are all short roads, one of them just 100m long, another 300m, another 500m. There is atleast one ref in each article but it isn't enough. Szzuk (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus - two !votes is not enough to determine if 5 pages should be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Brief mentions aren't enough, and I can't find any coverage specifically about the streets in question. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chã de Areia and include the essence of the article in its new home. It is hard to justify an entire entry for this street, but WP should keep a few facts about it. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 01:47, 8 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. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ignatius College, Messina[edit]

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

Jesuit promo, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 15:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question: Does it offer distinct degrees? If its students graduate from some main "St. Ignatius College" not in Messina, then it not a separate school. If it does offer its own degrees, and is separately accredited and run and so on, then it is a distinct secondary or higher school and we keep those. Hey, drop the anti-Jesuit tone. --Doncram (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep includes a high school and primary school, combined with verifying references Atlantic306 (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous WP:RS such as (Wise, John E. “Jesuit School Beginnings.” History of Education Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 1, 1961, pp. 28–31. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/367197.) assert that :"The first fully constituted college for lay students was founded at Messina, Sicily, in 1548." Knowing that in the 1400 and thought 1535 (when the Henry's Reformation made them not comparable insitutions with Messina,) Oxford and Cambridge admitted boys as young as ten - 12-year-olds were routine - although the modal age of admission was mid-teens. Boys not intended for holy orders left in their late teens, but if you wanted a bachelors degree, you stayed longer. In other words, Catholic "lay" Catholic institutions like Messina, Oxford and Cambridge served a BOTH what we now call secondary and tertiary institutions. I am guessing that this secondary school and othe University of Messina - both Jesuit - may share a common origin as daughter institutions of the old, Jesuit College, Messina, founded in 1548 and leveled in an earthquake in 1908.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this isn't promo, got some notable Ghits (though E.M.Gregory already provided the example I was going to use). Passes WP:NSCHOOL. Kirbanzo (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Atlantic306, E.M.Gregory and Kirbanzo. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:24, 4 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. Page has been speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Top Most Followed Nigerians On Instagram[edit]

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

fails WP:NOTSTATS. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is a duplicate of List Of The Most Followed Nigerian Stars On Instagram which is also nominated for deletion. So speedy deletion requested. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:50, 4 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. Nominator withdrawal due to new information making all of nom's concerns to be met. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G. Sparks (Surrey cricketer)[edit]

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

Non notable cricket player. Fails WP:NATHLETE, WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He flies through WP:NCRIC (with 6 first-class appearances), which is part of WP:NATHLETE. Spike 'em (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know about a G. Sparks but there was a famous English Surrey J. Sparks cricketer from the same time period. Govvy (talk) 11:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nm, Found a G. Spark in this source, [15] J. Sparks is there also, so just ignore my above comment. Govvy (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator, keep it as redirect B dash (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Norman (2018)[edit]

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

This storm doesn't have any special in MH, although it has impact on land, they can be included in the season's section B dash (talk) 08:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. B dash (talk) 08:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. B dash (talk) 08:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect like what was done while the storm was active and brought back for no real reason. AFD is not an appropriate place for a redirection though, especially in this case when outright deletion is not an acceptable option IMO. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:11, 4 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 21:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snowara Islam Boys' High School[edit]

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

I'm pretty sure this high school article is not titled correctly, according to this this diff, and this ref. Searches for "Snowara" are zero, and "Sanowara" searches return their school website and one ref. The first 2 sources presently cited in the article return "server not found" and the other sources, when searched, return a result to an editor's user page on Bengali Wikipedia. Regardless, it fails WP:N and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NSCHOOL. Kirbanzo (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline because the school has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. - tucoxn\^talk 14:47, 4 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 21:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ImageTrend Inc[edit]

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

All sources seem to be passing mentions, thereby failing WP:GNG. WP:NCORP doesn't seem to be met either. WP:BEFORE check didn't bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only coverage is routine listings and the like; no indepth coverage Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company. Appearance on fastest-growing lists is insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH and searches are not finding anything to indicate this as more than a company going about its business. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 4 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 one "keep" agrees that the sources are bad, so... Sandstein 21:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

StationRipper[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. There are some mentions in passing, but I am not seeing any in-depth coverage. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ward99 (talk)

The p2p articles did, as I recall, talk specifically about the app. The other two do in passing. Doing a quick search there seems to be a lot of sites talking about it and is included in a lot of articles about ripping internet radio. It's also the first google hit for record internet radio.

Agree that sources need to be updated. I don't have a lot of time to do this now - I worked on the article way back in the way (and still is a piece of software I use daily). I personally think it's well known enough to keep the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ward99 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 10:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this. The inclusion standard for software is not anybody's presumption about how well-known it is, or where it ranks in a Google search — the inclusion standard for software is being the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. But Slashdot and p2pnet are both blogs, not reliable sources for establishing the notability of anything, and StationRipper is just namechecked in, not the subject of, the only two references here that are reliable sources. When trying to establish notability, what we're looking for is dedicated coverage about the thing in media, not blog posts or its name getting mentioned in coverage about other things. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only one !vote, not enough to determine consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 07:02, 4 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 21:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sharanalaya Montessori School[edit]

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

Article has no reliable sources, thereby failing WP:V - adding onto that, WP:NSCHOOL is not met. Potential WP:PROMO. Kirbanzo (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable school. Ajf773 (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We have a ridiculously low bar for notability w.r.t schools and this doesn't even come close to that. — $f r +$ 15:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG there are absolutely no reliable source talking about the subject in great detail. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:23, 11 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 21:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abenezer Temesgen[edit]

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

Most of the references in this article are unreliable. I've discarded the ones that are obviously no-go on the face of things: YouTube, Vimeo, Indiegogo, etc. Only one of the remainder are reliable. Presented for review:

The Reporter Ethiopia: In-depth, discusses subject, reliable news organization. Great.
Ryot.org: site now defunct, no way to determine how reliable it was as there's no indication of an editorial policy.
The New Africa: largely an ad for their Indiegogo campaign.
Buzzfeed: Buzzfeed can be reliable at times, but I think this article is a pretty clear example of one of the times it isn't. This is basically Instagram photos peppered with quotes from the subject - it's not really media coverage, it's just revenue generation for Buzzfeed.
One Nigerian Boy: defunct, but looks like a blog. Mostly interview even if it wasn't a blog, so hardly reliable for notability purposes.
Frank151.com: interview from small media org.

Other sources located online were largely coverage of skating in Ethiopia, with name-drops of the subject. This CNN article is a good example of what I mean, as is this one from La Depeche. These hits from Online Ethiopia are both exact copies of the CNN article with different headlines. This profile in NATAAL.com looks good until you click their "About" page and see that they have no editorial policy and do brand consultancy, so we can hardly trust anything in it as independent. Finally, this Daily Beast article is just a photo gallery.

Long story short: we can't keep an article with only one reliable source. I'd suggest merge & redirect to skateboarding in Ethiopia, but it's a redlink. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See WP:ONESOURCE and WP:NRVE. Also, I am against a skateboarding in Ethiopia article. It is an extremely niche sport in Ethiopia and I am not aware of any country specific articles for skateboarding. Turtlewong (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skateboarding in China would like a word. For the record I'm not suggesting we make skateboarding in Ethiopia, only saying that if it existed I'd have suggested a merge there as an alternative to deletion, but since it doesn't exist that suggestion doesn't work. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable sportsperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 7 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 21:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Parris[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article about the business centre manager of a municipal borough's economic development office, whose strongest notability claim is that she was awarded the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion in 2006. This award is not so "inherently" notable as to exempt her from actually having to have any reliable source coverage, however — the extent to which any award confers "notable because award" on its recipients is strictly coterminous with the extent to which reliable source media outlets report the presentation of that award as news (but even the article about the award itself is stacked onto primary sources rather than reliable ones.) About half the people named in the award article are still redlinks, and even among the blue links a significant proportion are just recursive redirects right back to the award article, and/or other people who are every bit as unreferenced as this. And even the few bluelinks for whom notability isn't actually in question, it's because they have other strong notability claims besides this award in and of itself. And on a Google search, I get no evidence of reliable source media coverage to get this Amanda Parris over WP:GNG — I only get hits for the Canadian television broadcaster, not for a business centre manager from Rotherham. Bearcat (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Article has now had some sources added, but not good or notability-supporting ones. Two represent the award's own primary source content about itself, which is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make an award confer notability on its recipients because they won it; one is a mere photograph of the award being presented to her, which is not a notability-supporting source; and the last is a single newspaper article in the local newspaper, which is not enough coverage to singlehandedly get a person over WP:GNG all by itself if all the rest of the sourcing around it is non-notability-supporting junk. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the few references just do not add up to notability. Borough business center managers are almost never notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:26, 7 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. (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 08:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Snell Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable college football player. Does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:BIO. Disputed Proposed Deletion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has received national coverage per WP:NCOLLATH, including these national feature stories: [16] [17] [18]. However, the article desperately needs better sources as he's a WP:BLP. SportingFlyer talk 07:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion, it's not worth deleting the page and then recreating it when he (almost inevitably) gets drafted into the NFL and officially meets WP:NGRIDIRON. He could choose to turn pro at the end of this season and we are recreating a page for him in six months, which seems redundant to me. If I have some time soon I will try to add more sources and prose to it. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough coverage in sources to show this subject meets WP:GNG . Like this article from Yahoo Sports. JC7V-constructive zone 04:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage to show that this individual meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, as stated above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. It should be incorporated into the article, but that's an editing issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:12, 8 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 21:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Zitelli[edit]

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

Few sources, most are primary and one is a broken link. Not seeing many sources when Googling. Andise1 (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. WP:G11 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theta Phi Sigma[edit]

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

No sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:V failed due to lack of sources, as well as the article not meeting WP:NORG. Kirbanzo (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very promotional case of WP:PROMO, have nominated it for CSD G11, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:46, 6 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 21:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Always In Between Tour[edit]

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

No. We have notability guidelines in WP:NTOUR--this is just another tour, and there is no coverage to suggest it's notable by those standards. There's some stuff from Twitter, there's a bunch of promotional s**t in the sources, and there's a mention or two in magazines, but no significant coverage of the tour as a tour. Plus, it hasn't even happened, of course. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I might have suggested a merge with Always in Between but as this tour has not happened yet, it probably qualifies for delete under WP: TOOSOON. Vorbee (talk) 06:56, 4 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 21:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Island welding[edit]

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

An unreferenced and unimproved stub since its creation eleven years ago, its chief issue is that it does not appear to be true. I got two legitimate GScholar hits, both of which used the phrase in passing in talking about adjacent islets in an atoll becoming joined together. GBooks was essentially same, maybe not as good. I see no evidence that this is a legitimate term-of-art, and I don't see a merger as a viable outcome since its content appears to be at best inaccurate. Mangoe (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found the same thing as the nom through a search of internet sources - just very little there. SportingFlyer talk 09:47, 4 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 21:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Purvis (actor)[edit]

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

Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article has no reliable sources. Wikipedia is not meant to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 8 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. Because no reason for deletion is provided. Can be renominated with an actual reason. Sandstein 21:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Sawyer[edit]

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

Wrongful information
The article was inaccurate against the person
Tried to take it down multiple times
Please help take this page down as soon as possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladodgersfan1234 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— Ladodgersfan1234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: the AFD's creator created this page with no formatting and tried to add an AFD template to Craig Sawyer, only to make a big mess out of the article. I have formatted it and this AFD myself. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why have we gone to a 2nd nomination (this page) when the first nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Sawyer, doesn't exist? – numbermaniac 02:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Numbermaniac: This AFD's creator used another previous account to attempt to create the first nom page. See this diff. Proof that there the same person is the nominator's claim that they "Tried to take it down multiple times" when, looking at their contribs, they tried only once. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if this article is "wrongful" (sic) and inaccurate, the solution would be to correct the article rather than delete it. Vorbee (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 01:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - I have no idea what the nomination even is (blame the fact that the AfD was created with no formatting) - but the subject doesn't fail any policy that would allow it to be deleted. Also, deletion is not cleanup if that's what the nomination is going for, as that's what I understand from this faulty AfD - it seems to be trying to clean up using deletion. Kirbanzo (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is inaccurate you can always correct it. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason for deletion given. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above . Kpg jhp jm 08:38, 11 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spears (2019 film)[edit]

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

Copying my PROD concern:

Non-notable, unreleased film; unsourced; stub; will release in 2019. Doesn't seem to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NFILMS.

Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 00:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC); edited 00:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC) and 00:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON apply. Fails WP:NFILM. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign principal photography has begun. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Principal Photography is underway as noted in article that is referenced on the page was well as the IMDB page's production status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tech2012 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only source is IMDB and most of the Google hits are to something entirely unrelated.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFILM. Spleodrach (talk) 15:16, 5 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.