Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 October	7 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 no consensus. While this discussion has mostly led to a split in opinions between deletion and merging, no consensus for a particular outcome has ultimately arisen. Discussion can continue on the article's talk page if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Physical comparison of tigers and lions[edit]

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

This article should be deleted for much of the same reasons as the recently deleted Comparison of cheetahs, jaguars and leopards. It reads more like a personal essay than a proper Wikipedia article. Only a few of the sources used focus on comparing lions and tigers. The rest have lions only as a topic, tigers as a topic or are about big cats/Felidae as a whole, with differences between lions and tigers mentioned in passing. We also already have a Tiger vs lion article and comparisons between the species can be summarized there. LittleJerry (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. LittleJerry (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This is a spinoff from Tiger vs lion per WP:SPLIT. As the parent article was large, it's reasonable to try this. If there's a problem with the separation then we'd just merge them back together. Deletion would not be appropriate per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Tiger versus lion, this was forked out of Tiger versus lion by another user due to the great detail, all from references, present in the parent article, and let me warn that this is far better than some other articles that you managed to get deleted.

1) Heptner and Sludskiy compared the two, saying that they were the two largest species.^[1]

2) Haas et al. compared the two.^[2] Leo1pard (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3) Vratislav Mazák compared them in things like the length of the skull.^[3] Leo1pard (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it still has the same problems. Its just a larger article. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you've only given examples of sources mentioning comparisons between the two in passing. This was the same problem with the leopard/jaguar/cheetah article. LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is much more to this than that, I was not even finished giving you examples, and do I have to tell you what you forgot to do when nominating this for deletion? Leo1pard (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I didn't infrom you first. But that does not automatically invalidate the deletion process. LittleJerry (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the creator. Primefac had forked this from the main article, to reduce the immense detail in the main article, and it's not like the detail did not have sources. In fact, there are a lot of sources, listing all those sources here that talk about the issue of the lion versus tiger here would make this page very long. Leo1pard (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LittleJerry You deleted my comments! This is bias! Leo1pard (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was an editing conflict mistake. LittleJerry (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you also broke another rule here. Leo1pard (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to, it was an editing conflict. Go ahead and post it again. LittleJerry (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even aside from the accidental deletion of my comment, you did not do one important thing when nominating this for deletion. Leo1pard (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leo1pard, there is no requirement for an AFD nominator to inform the creator of a page (I assume that's what you're referring to). Primefac (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

Delete. LittleJerry hit the nail on the head in their initial nomination. This suffers from the same WP:SYNTH issues as recently cross-categorization AfDs of other big cats.[1][2] I reads like someone was trying to pull as much information as possible from sources when in realty, something like Physical_comparison_of_tigers_and_lions#Weight should just be tiger/lion weights range from X-Y at their given articles. What currently exists falls into WP:ISNOT territory.

I'm also seeing heavy reliance on primary sources too. As already mentioned at the past big cat AfDs that resulted in delete, scientists make physical comparisons of similar species all the time, but that generally does not contribute to notability. This one is no different. Instead, defining features of a species go to their respective articles, or else we have articles like Panthera that deal with comparative features within the broader group. Everything I'm finding in the article content-wise or source-wise is either not needed, redundant, or having synth issues by just detailing the individual animals rather than truly comparing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not a synthesis or mere cross-categorisation, and this is notable, and I showed only a few references to demonstrate my case, I have plenty more, both primary and secondary. For example, I already mentioned that Heptner and Sludskiy,^[1] Haas et al.,^[2] and Vratislav Mazák^[3] compared the two in things like size and the length of the skull, and apart from that, and these are only examples of what I have as references:

1) Craig Packer compared them in weight and height, with a note on differences between subspecies.^[4]

2) Sunquist and Sunquist compared them in behaviour.^[5]

3) Charles Frederick Partington compared them in things like size and behaviour.^[6]

4) Yamaguchi et al. compared their cranial capacities, and that is made prominent in the title "Brain size of the lion (Panthera leo) and the tiger (P. tigris): implications for intrageneric phylogeny, intraspecific differences and the effects of captivity".^[7]

5) Nyhus and Tilson compared them in cranial capacity and size or weight, with a note on differences between subspecies.^[8]

6) Guinness World Records compared them in things like size,^[9]^[10] if this wasn't notable, then why would this topic make it to Guinness? Leo1pard (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of those particularly contribute to notability, and you've been cautioned about that at previous AfDs. My mention of SYNTH was from directly looking at the article and it's sources. Species that have some degree of relation are compared all the time like you see in those sources. What you've established is WP:DUE at existing articles to talk briefly about distinct features of big cats. This is instead becoming a WP:COATRACK to pile on as much information as possible about the animals. This is a case of working the sources too hard to try to make a separate article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the fact that this even made it to Guinness shows how notable it is, and these are not the only sources that I have to show how notable this topic is, or that it is not a synthesis or coatrack, and by the way, I wasn't the one who made this a separate article, but decided to respect what another user decided about all these details. Leo1pard (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because: 1) the content is also already provided in the pages on tiger, lion and in the ones on populations, and with exhaustive enough details there already; 2) the fact that scientists compare species does not make a standalone page on such a topic in wikipedia notable or necessary, but imo is redundant; 3) this page indeed has features of an essay as LittleJerry pointed out (though not short enough to be one). -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, because 1) This page has content that is not in pages like Tiger and Lion; 2) It is not just scientists who compared them, even Guinness did that; 3) As pointed out, this topic has been directly mentioned in a number of sources, including these (By the way, I thought you changed your mind about engaging me in an argument, after saying this to me, because of which I decided to avoid engaging you in any argument, until you come here to argue with me?).^[9]^[10]^[4]^[6]^[7]^[8] Leo1pard (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, simply being mentioned is not enough for notability. Only one of the sources you provided focuses on comparing lions and tigers. The rest only talk about it in a few sentences/paragraphs as part of a greater topic of lions as a species, tigers or of felids. LittleJerry (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, more than one source talks specifically about lions and tigers, with comparisons to other animals being left in other passages, do I have to show why that is the case? Leo1pard (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you've already been told, simply talking about them is not enough. Species X vs. Y articles are almost always going to violate WP:NOTDIR policy in terms for cross-categorizations. The push for all these tiger vs. lion vs. cougar, etc. articles is a very WP:UNDUE use of sources for basic information they provide about species. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said to you that this is not a mere cross-categorisation, and I have been careful about the issue of WP:Neutrality when dealing with different sources like these,^[9]^[10]^[4]^[6]^[7]^[8] this is not basic information about species, I already showed you parts of the details in those sources, and I can give you more to demonstrate what I mean. For example:

1) Brakefield compared them in things like size and shape of the belly, with a note on differences between subspecies.^[11]

2) The English Cyclopædia compared them in things like skulls.^[12]

3) The Penny Cyclopædia compared them in things like skulls.^[13]

I have already listed not just scientific publications, but also cyclopædias and world records to show how notable this topic is, and this is not all that I have. Leo1pard (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're not listening. Find a sizable amount of sources that focus solely on lion and tiger physical comparisons and then we'll talk. Otherwise you're talking in circles. LittleJerry (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do have sources that focus mostly or solely on that, but as per WP:GNG, there should be reliable sources that are independent of the subject (as in, "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it"), so what rule is this? As per WP:GNG, it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, but should have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and I have shown why this is covered in independent reliable sources, and thus satisfies WP:GNG, even without putting all reliable references that are independent of the topic, yet talk about it, so please don't give me any more personal rules like that sources shouldn't be independent of the topic. Leo1pard (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now your throwing things at a wall and seeing what sticks. All sources on lions and tigers are independent of them since they are not actually writing about themselves. And you only have one source that exclusively focuses on them. LittleJerry (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have only one source that focuses exclusively on them, and I know that we are supposed to have sources that are independent of the subject, and yet it should be covered in enough of them to show how notable it is, and here, I have shown only a number of sources that deal with them,^[9]^[10]^[4]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[11]^[12]^[13] independently, directly or otherwise, and not appreciating what valid references may say like this is not acceptable. Leo1pard (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*sign*, I removed that source because it don't belong in the lead paragraphs and there was already sourced information below stating pretty much the same thing. You are hitting below the belt to save your pet project. LittleJerry (talk) 13:58, 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 06:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sorry but this is simply not encyclopedic. Tiger vs lion does whatever job there is to do here, better, but frankly we don't need N-squared species-comparison articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How is a WP:Comparison not encyclopaedic, and in the context of Wikipedia, considering that topics should be covered in reliable, independent sources, I have shown these to be applicable to this topic? Leo1pard (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Organisms that are related or share a similar function or ecological niche are always going to compared. That doesn't mean these comparisons should have their own articles. But your logic we can have articles like "Comparisons of polar bears and brown bears" or "Comparisons of bats and birds" or "Comparisons of plants and animals". LittleJerry (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not they do depends on notability, and I have so many reliable or independent sources on this that there should be no doubt as to its notability. Leo1pard (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Tiger vs lion, but only if there is any unique content left over after first deleting the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR material presently bloating this article. I also have concerns that this is actually a non-encyclopediac topic that should not exist under any title. Loopy30 (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What WP:SYNTH or WP:OR? I've gone through the various references like these^[9]^[10]^[4]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[11]^[12]^[13] and described what they say. For example, if there was a mention on conflicting views about exactly which lions or tigers were bigger than the others, then I noted that down. Leo1pard (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've made your point already. Don't badger everyone who puts in their two cents. LittleJerry (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, whatever happens here is because of what you have done. If you don't want this type of thing from happening again, then stop doing things like this. I talked to you earlier regarding an issue like this, but you didn't care, and decided to carry on, and now, this is all happening because of what you have done. If you WP:don't like something that has been covered in valid sources, then don't bother with it, don't have anything to do with it. Leo1pard (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Heptner, V. G.; Sludskii, A. A. (1992) [1972]. Mlekopitajuščie Sovetskogo Soiuza. Moskva: Vysšaia Škola [Mammals of the Soviet Union, Volume II, Part 2]. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution and the National Science Foundation. pp. 83–202. ISBN 90-04-08876-8.
^ ^a ^b Haas, S.K.; Hayssen, V.; Krausman, P.R. (2005). "Panthera leo" (PDF). Mammalian Species. 762: 1–11. doi:10.1644/1545-1410(2005)762[0001:PL]2.0.CO;2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 July 2017.
^ ^a ^b Mazák, V. (1981). "Panthera tigris" (PDF). Mammalian Species. 152 (152): 1–8. doi:10.2307/3504004. JSTOR 3504004. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 March 2012.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Packer, C. "Frequently asked questions". University of Minnesota Lion Research Project. Retrieved 28 June 2011.
^ Sunquist, M.; Sunquist, F. (2002). Wild Cats of the World (1st ed.). Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. pp. 7–350. ISBN 978-0-22-677999-7.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Charles Frederick Partington (1835). "Felis, the cat tribe". The British cyclopæedia of natural history. Orr & Smith.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Yamaguchi, N.; Kitchener, A. C.; Gilissen, E.; MacDonald, D. W. (2009). "Brain size of the lion (Panthera leo) and the tiger (P. tigris): implications for intrageneric phylogeny, intraspecific differences and the effects of captivity". Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 98 (1): 85–93. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2009.01249.x.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Ronald Tilson, Philip J. Nyhus (2010), "Tiger morphology", Tigers of the world, Academic Press, ISBN 978-0-8155-1570-8
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Wood, Gerald L. (1976). The Guinness Book of Animal Facts and Feats. Guinness Superlatives. ISBN 978-0-900424-60-1. Retrieved 2017-10-16.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Wood, G. L. (1983). The Guinness Book of Animal Facts and Feats. Sterling Publishing. ISBN 978-0-85112-235-9.
^ ^a ^b ^c Brakefield, Tom (1993). Big Cats: Kingdom of Might. Voyageur Press. p. 44. ISBN 978-0-89658-329-0.
^ ^a ^b ^c Charles Knight, ed. (1867). The English Cyclopaedia. Retrieved 2014-08-28.
^ ^a ^b ^c The Penny Cyclopædia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. Vol. 14. Charles Knight and Co. 1846-01-09. Retrieved 2014-08-28.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I had relisted this on 4 October 2018 but it was reverted with an edit summary stating that "it should not be relisted again", along with a link to an opinion essay (diff). Furthermore, the relisting reversion was performed by a participant in this discussion, which is generally out of process. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per Wikipedia:Relisting, articles should not be relisted when a consensus has taken place. There was already a lengthy discussion of a page that was nominated for deletion since the 20th of September, with no clear consensus, and this page had earlier been relisted on the 27th of September, so the best thing now is to close this as "no consensus". Under the rules, "relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable." Since there already has been substantive debate, I have to decry the repeated act of relisting as WP:Abusive relisting. Leo1pard (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus that the article should either be deleted or merged back to the Lion vs Tiger article. LittleJerry (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also the essay you linked states "Avoid relisting a deletion discussion if a consensus has been firmly and recently established." It names abusive relisting as attempts to get more users to comment in order to reverse a consensus. Northamerica1000 is clearly not doing that. LittleJerry (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion should have long been over since the 30th of September. As per the rules, relisting should not be an excuse to avoid closing the process, and it's been 17 days since you've nominated it for deletion, and over 7 days since it was initially relisted by Northamerica, which allowed the large debate to continue on, so Northamerica should not have relisted it again. It's time for a closure. Leo1pard (talk) 18:05, 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. Tone 07:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Ekanayaka[edit]

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

Not a notable subject and the article appears to be promotional in nature. Sakaimover (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are two pieces that are just barely more than WP:ROUTINE coverage in WP:RSs, so I'm leaning to a keep and not looking for additional refs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree there are two (and only two that I have seen far) reliable independent sources. That does meet the requirements for WP:NMUSIC (although barely). -Obsidi (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to have had some coverage, its not vast but it is there.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the sourcing currently in the article is just about sufficient, and I suspect there may be more sourcing in Sinhalese and/or Tamil, neither of which I am familiar with. --bonadea contributions talk 19:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per coverage. The article could do with some work though. Finnishela (talk) 15:09, 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 07:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Kennedy (chemistry spokesperson)[edit]

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

Originally nominated by me for PROD with the justification Non-notable individual. No coverage in independent reliable sources beyond mere mentions, generally in connection with an art project he did listing the chemicals in "natural" foods. Doesn't meet, WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, is arguably a case of WP:BLP1E based on provided coverage.

The PROD was blocked, and additional sources were added, including some Chinese ones that are harder for me to verify. However, as far as I can tell these additional sources do not establish notability (regardless of whether or not they are reliable), as they are mere mentions of the subject in connection to a school he works at. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable for having created the fruit ingredients posters that went viral among chemistry circles. He is also notable for having authored a book on people's irrational fear of chemicals, which is available on Amazon. He is also notable for running workshops and speaking at events worldwide to spread the same message. Some of these lectures were recorded live and are available in the references cited. Tianjinren88 (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. This BLP is nothing but promotionalism. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Probably self-promotionalism. This was declined at AfC.PRehse (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a redirect. The campaign the subject runs for "natural chemicals" would I suggest have more than enough WP:NEXIST to easily support WP:GNG. It has multiple references from independent reliable sources over a number of years. I suggest that the "natural chemicals" subject will have reasonable interest, but not the current subject person per se at this time. Notability is not inherited. I suggest that the article be WP:TNTed and redone about "natural chemicals" with the current subject strongly mentioned with due weight and with a redirect from the current title to the new article. Aoziwe (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As someone interested in food and chemistry, I'm familiar with the work of James Kennedy and I've seen his infographics in many places. But I'm not sure he meets criteria outlined at WP:BIO. I think his work trying to teach the public about chemophobia is worth mentioning somewhere on Wikipedia (Googling the term chemophobia and james kennedy turns up many results). He may be individually responsible for popularization of the term. At the very least, his name should redirect to that article. Deli nk (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per solid arguments made above. This article does appear to be promotional in nature and the sources leave a lot to be desired. Deli nk and Aoziwe have suggested sound alternatives. Sakaimover (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for the publishing of promotional autobiographies. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:53, 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 07:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shorveer Sister[edit]

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

Unsourced stub about an Indian soap opera with no claim to notability. Google searches turned up this profile which would appear to confirm that the show has no significant following or other claim to notability.

Previously moved to draft by Domdeparis with the justification Unsourced and fails criteria WP:DRAFTIFY as an alternative to deletion please do not move back to main space without sources., blocked by previously-uninvolved The citty with the unpersuasive justification of It will be kept as an article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable in any aspects. Currently, there is a whole sock/meat farm out there in the field of Hindi television. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability criteria. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:27, 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 07:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smarandache number[edit]

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

I can't find any indication that this meets WP:GNG. The main places I can find reference to "Smarandache number" are: Mathworld, which tends not to be very reliable in terms of naming things; writings by Smarandache himself, which certainly shouldn't be taken into consideration here; and writings by his disciples, which also shouldn't. There's no indication that there's been any interest in these numbers in the broader mathematical community. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask how one recognises "writings by his disciples" and why they shouldn't be counted for WP:N? Are publications in the journal Smarandache Notions from his disciples? How about this? SpinningSpark 07:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's worth pointing out that several sources are using "Smarandache number" to mean Kempner function, also known as "Smarandache function" which is an entirely different thing (eg [3]). It's also worth noting that Smarandache–Wellin number is a related concept, so a merged page might be possible. SpinningSpark 07:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The OEIS page gives results from quite a few mathematicians. Many of them are published in the field (so meeting WP:SPS). Checking out just the first few names, Paolo P. Lava and Reinhard Zumkeller are published. Clifford Pickover is also there. Looking more and more like a keep to me. SpinningSpark 08:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please make sure the names you are viewing are of real people. There has been a lot of speculation over the years over whether the people working on "Smarandache mathematics" exist separately from Smarandache himself. There are no entries for Lava in MathSciNet. (Pickover is real, of course, and Zumkeller appears to be as well, although very sparsely published.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just as Smarandache–Wellin number, what is the difference? And even Mathworld has its page [4] --- Xayahrainie43 (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 1, 11, 2234 ...
Delete per nom. Smarandache is a notorious self-promoter, aggressively naming pre-existing concepts after himself. One needs to be extremely cautious regarding sourcing anything relating to him, as David Eppstein mentions. See also this discussion. --JBL (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems unlikely that any of the papers (or even web pages) about this subject (possibly other than MathWorld) are by real people. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, redirect to Champernowne word and protect to force the double-redirect to remain. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. I can't find enough reliable sources referring to these numbers as "Smarandache numbers" to warrant attaching that name (indeed, the concept is so simple it barely requires one). The only reference provided at the OEIS page is Guy's Unsolved Problems in Number Theory, which says, "Charles Nicol and John Selfridge ask if the sequence of concatenations of the natural numbers in base 10 [...] contains infinitely many primes. Robert Baille has found that there are no such primes out to $n=1000$ ." He doesn't even talk about the sequence long enough to bother naming it. The other links at the OEIS page are to Smarandache fans, viXra, a website by Pickover (which uses a different name), a math forum thread (which uses only the OEIS number), a slide deck from Sloane (ditto), and MathWorld (which is not particularly reliable for names). Let's put this bit of Smarandachian self-promotion to bed. XOR'easter (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The possibility of self-promotion is convincing. Seems we would need unimpeachable sources before this could stay. SpinningSpark 20:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spinningspark and JBL. Self-promotional crap. To be clear, he's self-promoting in the real world, not on Wikipedia; but his self-promotion has not reached notability in any way for this topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:52, 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 07:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lubna Valiya[edit]

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

Previously deleted via A7, and recreated. No effective reference. Highly promotional. Of 10 references, 8 are videos. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, refs are youtube or trivial, google and news not showing anything i can see. Szzuk (talk) 18:30, 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 Draft. Moved to draftspace. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Story Discussion[edit]

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

Non-notable web series. Fails WP:GNG, WP:TVSERIES and WP:WEB due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Flooded with them hundreds 13:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move to a draft, I am still working on the article, it might take me some more time before I finish it. JengaMan77 (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft per above. Seemingly it has potential and we might be close to having a article for this subject. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft Not sure why this AfD is still on when the creator of the article himself recommended moving to draft. At this current state it is not satisfying WP:GNG and WP:TVSERIES. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Lourdes 15:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edris Armaghani[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO with no independent reliable sources. There are a few English sources in the article, but they do not appear to be independent. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 17:14, 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. Based on general discussion and appraisal of sources it appears the subject fails NCORP. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dillon International[edit]

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

An advertortorially-toned page on an unremarkable adoption agency. Does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 15 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 08:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. I found a few sources, but nothing that is both significant coverage and a reliable source. Fails WP:NCORP.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NCORP with significant coverage in RS. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable to me as one of the two foreign agencies to have the approval of the Vietnamese government for the adoption of children - [5][6][7]. There is coverage of the organisation all over the world - [8][9][10]. The article needs rewriting, but that's a different issue. Hzh (talk)
- Note to closing admin The bulk of the above linked sources are not in English so they may need to be checked by someone with the appropriate language skills or a good translator service in order to determine if they meet the standard for the new and improved NCORP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment about sources. They are accessible via Google translate, and are routine news item, passing mentions, and / or rewarmed press releases (WP:SPIP). For example:

The Korean National Association of Korean Music (Texas) branch participated in a Korean adoptee camp organized by Dillon International held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, from Thursday 26th to 28th. [11]
On September 16, 2014, the Ministry of Justice awarded operation licenses to two US organizations, Dillon International and Holt International Children's Services, to operate in the field of foreign adoption in Vietnam after the adoption agreement. interrupted 2008. Nguyen Van Trong, in charge of the Dillon Internationnal office, was delighted at the opportunity to smile again with the little girl. [12]
Under the new agreement, there will be only two adoption agencies — Dillon International Inc. and Holt International Children’s Services Inc. — licensed to operate in Vietnam. (the only mention in the piece) [13], in English.

Etc. None of this meets WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a free means of promotion, nor a replacement for a corporate website. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 14 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 07:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Fara'[edit]

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

Unsourced, unverified. Pin points to unnamed area of farmland/sparse settlement. There is a Wadi Fara in Ras Al Khaimah, but no town or notable settlement of the same name. The nearest settlement to the pin is Al Masna' Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonsensical uncited three-word article of dubious accuracy. Softlavender (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not verify that this place exists, delete per WP:DEL7. Sam Sailor 14:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPLACE. I added a source. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The linked source refers to a valley called Fara. That's not a settlement. Stub still unsourced as a settlement and fails WP:GEOLAND IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:23, 22 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 02:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find it. Szzuk (talk) 18:33, 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 07:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Fay'[edit]

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

Unsourced, uncited, unverified. Pin points to hinterland scrub behind the coastal settlement of Sha'am. Al Fay' or derivatives not notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete uncited inaccurate three-word article. Softlavender (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL7, I can not verify that this place exists. Judging from Google Maps satellite view there appears to be nothing named Al Fay' (Arabic: الفاي^(spelling?)) at the location given. Sam Sailor 14:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPLACE. I added some info to substantiate its existence. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first linked source just confirms it's not notable - an archaic plantation of the Dhahaminah tribe. The second is likely derived from the same archaic source as the OP used. A disused plantation is not a settlement. Stub still unsourced as a settlement and fails WP:GEOLAND IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:23, 22 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 02:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 14:47, 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. Lourdes 15:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For Heaven and Earth Party[edit]

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

Not notable. Sources are a dead link (bangkokbiznews.com source), the Thai Wikipedia article, their party website (asoke.info which seems to be having hosting issues), and a PDF that just shows the party exists. Fails GNG. Vermont (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- nominators are supposed to try to make a reasonable effort, before nominating weak articles for deletion, to first determine whether they were looking at a weak article on a genuinely notable topic. I performed a google book search, and I think its results make clear the party was a real party, one which real scholars wrote enough in enough detail to meet our inclusion criteria.
Nominator, when someone considers nominating a weak article for deletion, and their independent search for references makes clear the topic itself merits a standalone article, aren't they supposed to take steps to call for the article's improvement, not nominate it for deletion?
Isn't it counter-policy to abuse AFD as a goad for article improvement? Tagging the article with meaningful tags, like {{refimprove}} would be one policy compliant choice. Voicing their concerns on the talk page, or leaving notes on the user talk page of contributors they thought added problematic material are also policy compliant choices. Geo Swan (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I excerpted passages from a scholarly article devoted ENTIRELY to the party's 2011 campaign posters. Geo Swan (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

excerpts from the abstract of Political semiotics of national campaign posters and pictorial representation: Thailand's 2011 general elections
The highly contested nature of Thai politics becomes salient when viewing campaign posters pictorial and linguistic content. The most controversial of which was the ``Vote No campaign taken on by the For Heaven and Earth Party This study seeks to unwrap and decode the semiotics of this party's...

I think you misunderstand why I AfD'd this article: I do not think it is notable, and I am not attempting to use AfD for article improvement. Nor am I claiming it does not exist; political parties are not inherently notable. A search for something as broad as the name of the party (in Thai, obviously) yields a few non-notable news articles, some YouTube videos, and it's social media groups. This isn't significant coverage. From what I was able to find, the party does not seem to have any of its members in political office. The "Vote No" campaign that study focuses on would, in my opinion, merit a section in the article on the Thai general election, 2011, but not to be construed as making this political party notable. Vermont (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since AfD is not for cleanup. GenuineArt (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what you constitute to be significant coverage in several independent sources that make this party notable? Vermont (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Even the passing mentions are few and far between. Articles on election posters do not equal sources on the actual party. Kleuske (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sample of news coverage from major newspapers: Post Today [14], Thai Rath [15], Manager Daily [16], Kom Chad Luek [17]. Latest news from March 2018 showed the party is ranked 9th in terms of number of members of the party. [18] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Post Today article, which is a quote and a few sentences, seems to focus on the fact that they're sending candidates after 8 years of doing nothing. The article from Thai Rath looks to be more about a dispute which the party was involved in than the party itself, and is not significant. The article from Manager Daily seems go over the party's platform as well as speak about how small it is compared to the larger parties, and the article from Kom Chad Luek seems to be an overview of some recent party issues and a short interview. Of course, as I don't know Thai very well, you're much better at discerning if this is significant coverage than I am. Vermont (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly enough sources for notability. (but having a weak article come here is in practice one of the best way of calling it to attention for people to improve. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to People's Alliance for Democracy. What RS there seems to be seems to be in conjunction with the People's Alliance which is a notable allied party. I am not seeing info on what this party has done either currently or historically. The notability standard for political parties should be VERY low but having looked at sources here and at the Thai version of this article I'm not seeing it at this time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:55, 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 06:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per DGG. I also looked at the references and found them sufficient. The article, however, is weak and poor at the moment, but that has never been a deletion guideline. Rosario (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fyers[edit]

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

This company does not meet the notability requirements of WP:NCORP. Sources in the article are primary, unreliable, or not substantial. "FYERS introduces zero brokerage for equity", reported in many sources, is a press release as stated in the footer here. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion on my talk page the article has been significantly improved. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH; references are directories, press releases, or trivial. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article has been significantly improved, but the updated references sound as though they are sponsored product reviews, and I don't know the publications well enough to be able to feel sure of their independence/reliability; I would look to someone who is more familiar with these sources for guidance. Overall, I'm still not convinced that WP:CORPDEPTH has really been achieved, but I would be ok with the article being kept if that is the consensus. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jmertel23 above and the creator has a conflict of interest as well. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the references are reliable and in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. Shashank10490 (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Shashank10490 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Note: The above comment was moved from the AfD talk page. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there are some valid references and a quick google search provides some notability, the article is a poor stub but could be improved. Sargdub (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sargdub:--Please read WP:ORGIND and WP:ORGDEPTH.∯WBG^converse 16:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-This is sheer-promo-spam failing WP:ORGIND, quoting the people at helm.Almost akin to a press-release.This too fails WP:ORGIND on same grounds.is a borderline-RS and a profile in a niche-publication, hardly convinces me any.This yet again fails WP:ORGIND, on the same grounds and even WP:ORGDEPTH.If anymone to retrive anuything new (I'm yet to run a detailed crawl), I'm willing to revisit this.∯WBG^converse 16:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for organizations and companies, clarified in WP:NCORP, makes it clear that two references that provide significant in-depth intellectually independent coverage should be available. This topic has none. As noted by WGB above, the references noted in the article fail the criteria as they are based on company announcements or are mentions-in-passing. In addition, I am unable to locate and references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:26, 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 delete. Tone 07:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Ducks[edit]

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

A7 declined. Was PROD'd and de-PROD'd in 2009 so must be taken to AfD.

I can't find any sources mentioning this person at all, anywhere. The source presently in the article is dead (or at least it is for me), and although the main website Nation News loads, the archive area [19] does not (this could be a browser issue).

I searched Google under Karl and Carl Ducks, and tried appending +Barbados, +comedy, and +comedian. No results, not even trivial mentions, when searching the standard Google, GBooks, GNews, GScholar. The Barbados Advocate and Barbados Today newspapers returned no results, although neither website is clear about how far their archives go back online. Caribbean News Now only goes back to 2010. I've done my best to look for other online Barbadian newspaper archives but haven't found an archive that covers the relevant time period.

I also checked Highbeam and Newspapers.com just in case, although they are US-oriented, and found no relevant hits (again, not even trivial mentions).

I'm stumped as to where else I could search. In the absence of sources, I don't think we can keep this article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 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 13:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a stub, nothing on google, books returning lots of karls ducking. Szzuk (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 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 19:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Madhussneha Upadhyay[edit]

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

No strong indication of notability. The article claims that she's an actress, model, comedian and dancer, yet provides nothing to support acting, modeling, or comedy. According to the article she appeared in one song (as a dancer? An actor? An actordancer?) in the 2015 Indian Telugu-language film Baahubali: The Beginning. Zero Google News hits for Madhussneha Upadhyay, but there are some hits for Sneha Upadhyay and Madhu Sneha. I don't see any that suggest we're meeting the significant coverage or independent requirements of the WP:GNG. This is an interview. There is some mention of her here, but it's basically press-release-style content. This short article says that she's got a lot of buzz, but hasn't done much in Tollywood (Telugu cinema)--so why are we focusing on her? WP:TOOSOON. This has the feel of a vanity/paid article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently she is only known for a part in a video. Despite the sources given (she must have a good publicist), I can't see how that would qualify her under WP:NACTOR without multiple significant roles. While it is possible that she may qualify in the future she doesn't qualify for now. Hzh (talk) 21:30, 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 13:13, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD G5 creation by a banned or blocked user in violation of their ban or block. No obstacle to recreation by an editor in good standing. SpinningSpark 17:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Odunsi (The Engine)[edit]

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

A promising musician that might have a notable career. Presently fails WP:NMUSIC. Awards nominated for are not notable enough to confer auto notability. The category he was even nom for is not a major one. Still a case of WP:TOOSOON, the references does not signify passing WP:GNG. HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why are you interested in created previously deleted articles by blocked editors? All the BLPs you've created since you joined WP has been previously deleted via a discussion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odunsi (The Engine), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abimbola Ogunnowo (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Ikeji and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dj Kentalky (1 and 2). What is your relationship with blocked editors? HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep Sometimes I wonder if you do your research before nominating my articles, I started writing this article in July.. It took you 1 day to nominate without giving any good reason.. Article clearly meet the criteria WP:NMUSIC, criteria 1 which stated published works in all forms, such as magazine articles (Guardian Life ), 4 which stated has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour in at least one sovereign country Odunsi & Nonso Amadi UK Concert, 7 which stated has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style "Alternative music", 8 Has been nominated for a major music award, such as "Nigeria Entertainment Awards", 10 Has performed music for a work of media that is notable Isoken movie, 11 Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio The Beat 99.9 FM alternative and 12 Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio The Beat 99.9 FM on "The Morning Rush" show with Olisa Adibua & Maria Okanrende.--Timi422 (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet !vote: WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Wikipedia never stated "the category of an award must be major" but stated on WP:NMUSIC the award won or been nominated for must be a major music award. Don't misinterpret the law wrongly. Also articles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria, but this article didn't meet one but 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 so it not a cause of may be notable but is notable enough to stand alone. As of WP:GNG he was covered on a printable magazine as stated above and here are some reliable source Nigerian Tribune, OkayAfrica also he performed at the Gidi Culture Festival 2018, Maleek Berry Last Daze Of Summer Lagos Concert, also he attended Burna Boy private listening party for new album "Outside" and he was also on Soundcity Radio Network where he talked about "In The Morning" song and Mental Health issues on Mixcloud. With all this,notable event he performed, an radio broadcast segment across a national radio and alot more. I don't see him as a case of WP:TOOSOON but as of 2017 it was a clear case of WP:TOOSOON when the first deletion was made.--Timi422 (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Striking comment by sockpuppet: WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber representation in Nigerian music scene is one aspect of our sociocultural landscape that has as much digital coverage as western counterparts. Because of this, it is very easy for upcoming musician to masquerade themselves like they pass GNG, due to passing mentions, promotional interviews and minor coverage but a critical assessment of WP:NMUSIC will show that they are currently of no encyclopedic value to Wikipedia. And I didn't come across this page yesterday, I've added it to my watchlist while it was in draftspace because even though I can't prove it convincingly yet, I'm 99% certain you're a sock of someone with strong COI connections.
The film, Isoken contained 23 Nigerian songs made by different artists. Odunsi's song was not the original/main soundtrack for the film. His song was just played for some few seconds, there is nothing noteworthy about that.
Nigeria Entertainment Awards has never been a main award to confer notability, don't be deceived by its name. Its selection and awarding process falls short of global standards. Even The Headies, that doesn't have a rigorous selection process like AFRIMAs has grown to be a prestiguous music ceremony because of its history. There are a number of notable music awards that confer notability for Nigerian musicians, NEA isn't one of them. Please read about All Africa Music Awards and see how a significant award is usually organized. I created most of the yearly articles for NEAs and categories such as Most Promising Act are completely disregarded based historical records at AFDs. Odunsi didn't even win it, he was just nominated! Winning a major category such as Artiste of the Year, Song of the Year, etc may be considered weakly, but there is usually no discussion in favour of regarding most promising act. HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep working on major labels such as Universal and Warner and has coverage in multiple reliable sources already in the article such as the Nigerian Tribune, also nominated for a notable award, passes WP:GNG regards, Atlantic306 (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus even after two relists
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 13:13, 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 07:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn David Thompson[edit]

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

BLP appears to fail WP:NACTOR. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 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 Draft. Moved to draftspace. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey's 90th Spectacular[edit]

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

The disney fan club is not a reliable source. We're an encyclopedia, not a TV guide that published announcements for upcoming TV specials. Vexations (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate in draft space. Doesn't appear to meet notability and verifiability guidelines right now, but I'm certain it will after it airs next month. — Newslinger talk 12:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draft-ify I'm not nearly as confident as Newslinger that this will be notable after it airs, but it's worth a shot. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:54, 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 07:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Moore (musician)[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article has many sources but none are independent and reliable. Blogs, user edited, shop. Albums are self released. No sign of charting, gold or major awards for his CDVR project. He was a member of two notable bands but was not really a prominent member. He was a very short term member of We Came as Romans but left well before their success. He was a temporary fill in member of I See Stars and did not appear on any of their albums. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:47, 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 keep. WP:SNOW keep, per WP:DINC. Article has been cleaned up. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Taskmaster episodes[edit]

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

Too much unsourced WP:OR. Matt14451 (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:EPISODE. Containing too much original research is not a reason to delete - deletion is not cleanup.--Laun chba ller 19:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. If it's unsourced, tag it or add sources. -- Alex^TW 02:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. ISD (talk) 07:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the above, and no valid deletion rationale has been supplied. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but everything other than the ratings section needs to go. Something like List of 8 Out of 10 Cats episodes is a relevant model to use, though this one's an odd one as the contestants are the same throughout the series. The task-by-task cruft is not for Wikipedia but it is valuable to fans so maybe someone could ship it off to Wikia. Also, none of the content is original research. It is, however, a massive violation of WP:IINFO/WP:NOTSTATS. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:08, 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 07:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strangers in Paradise (band)[edit]

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

Non notable band. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article many sources but all are local interest and bar one where the band is talking about themselves none go into any depth. A search found nothing better. Albums are self released. No sign of charting, gold or major awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator, not much out there for this band that would satisfy WP:NMUSIC. Teemu08 (talk) 13:47, 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 07:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William E. Nelson[edit]

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

The supposed WP:RS in the article goes to 404 errors. This Google Search doesn't produce any RS. I tried with his name + wax, same. Google search of just his name doesn't produce anything either. I came across this when I was looking for a different William E. Nelson, the legal scholar. The legal scholar might be notable. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing claimed in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced much, much better than this. There's also a potential conflict of interest here, as the article has been extensively edited by someone with the username Waxxywilly77, and was created by an editor who states on his own user page that he's from the same small town as the subject. How the hell has this survived this long in this state without getting thrown in the trash? Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Bearcat. A pet project with serious WP:COI potential. Besides this FB post, I found very little about this "inventor." If such profile would have been correct, his name would have come up in scholarly and legal publications. Rosario (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waterflame[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BAND. Given coverage is from WP:PRIMARY and self-published sources and does not establish notability. Searching did not turn up any better sources. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 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 10:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment I recall a criteria in WP:BAND saying that the article should be notable if the artist has released 2 or more albums. While in the YouTube EDM area it’s hard to define what is an album, Waterflame has 2 distinct ones Geometry Dash Soundtracks and Waterflame Community Favourites. Also you may want to include this in the Video games category since most of his music is for the gaming industry and may be more notable there than in the Music area. Thanks. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 00:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No support for deletion. Merge proposals can be discussed on the article talkpage. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AUFS[edit]

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

Non notable subject that has no significant coverage so it fails easily WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* RedirectArticle needs to revert back to oldid=267561459 or become a DAB. May add interim hatnote. Even if surviving does not own the AUFS space and would require rename Article would need improvement to survive.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per consensus - But if consensus is a keep the article should be renamed to Absorbance Units Full Scale or Absorbance units full scale and AUFS should be converted from a redirect to a dab. Should this be a keep I will WP:BOLDly that after the keep unless there is objection now in which case I would likely go to WP:REQMOVE. See also Article title format as why the current (ambiguous) title is unsuitable. If not a keep then should revert to oldid=267561459 (a redirect) or a DAB. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the information, but I have no problem with a merge somewhere else, perhaps High-performance liquid chromatography. Or Absorbance which is where Absorbance Units redirects. It's a widely used term of art appearing in numerous textbooks, so should go somewhere on Wikipedia. This page is a much better source than the forum post currently in our article, and has a rather better explanation than our article. SpinningSpark 16:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved the article, if a 'keeper' doesnt feel its an improvement your welcome to the rollback. I am not doing a rescue, but hopefully the cites are useful ... more would be needed to survive. The body would need to be expanded out and the content would need to match the cites for article survival. If attempting a merge avoidance of any undue weight or disruption to the target is critically important. I do note that this seems to be one of many acronyms in this area and the article would need to indicate why this is different. My main concern is AUFs is back to a redirect or a dab. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)*[reply]

KEEP important definition for chemistry students Tiptopper (talk) 02:01, 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 19:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting Club G-EGGS[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable stable with mostly WP:ROUTINE results sources. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything to meets WP:GNG for this short lived stable. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 19:57, 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 07:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hollowealth[edit]

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

Non notable band. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article has many sources but none are independent and reliable. Blogs, user edited, non reliable (note MTV hosted page is not by MTV). Albums are self released. No sign of charting, gold or major awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found that would indicate notability. --Michig (talk) 06:52, 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 07:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Medusa Smile[edit]

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

Non notable band. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article has many sources but none are independent and reliable. Blogs, user edited, the band talking about themselves. Albums are self released. No sign of charting, gold or major awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found that would indicate sufficient notability. --Michig (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of WP:NMUSIC notability. Pretty hard to satisfy the requirements with self-released material. Teemu08 (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMUSIC and lacks coverage. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:51, 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 07:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Borderlands (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable band. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article has many sources but none are independent and reliable. Blogs, user edited, the band talking about themselves. Albums are self released. No sign of charting, gold or major awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found that would indicate sufficient notability. --Michig (talk) 07:01, 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 delete. Michig (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Osula Julian[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman, cited sources do not appear to be reliable, no in-depth coverage elsewhere online, although I did find this report (in a source of questionable reliability) which names Julian as "an ordinary citizen". Does not meet WP:NBIO. Was nominated for PROD and endorsed by another editor, but was blocked by the article's creator, who then provided this source, which is both behind a paywall, doesn't appear to clearly address the Osula Julian, and hasn't been considered a reliable source in previous WP:RSN discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing different since July 24th Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Osula. HandsomeBoy (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 03:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and previous consensus. Minimal reliable source coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG, appears to be a pretty run-of-the-mill businessman. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt name variations: A name-inversion variant article re-created less than a month after the previous AfD deletion (which was also followed by another re-creation and CSD G4: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=&page=Julian+Osula). Despite the blog-like sources' claims that the subject has "paved his road to acclaim like the proverbial fortune hunter that dared the odds and braved through storms to create eternity from a moment", etc., I am seeing nothing substantial to indicate encyclopaedic notability, and no reason to overturn the July 2018 AfD consensus. AllyD (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails to show any notability; neither sources support it. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 22:25, 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 07:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bogatyri (comics)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. All incoming article-space links are from lists and disambiguation, and the team only appears four times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations, or List of Russian superheroes. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations per above vote.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The lack of incoming links shows not even a hint of notability within the fiction, let alone in the real world. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and NCOMICS. Nothing notable enough to merge, and no suitable target for redirect. --Killer Moff (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 03:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable enough to merge - per User:Killer Moff.._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:43, 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Sorry but after three relists, it's time to call this a hung jury and declare a mistrial. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Mataf[edit]

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

Not sourced, not cited, not verified. Pin points to the sea, so presumably this phantom community has sunk since. Not notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bogus uncited three-word article. Softlavender (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a false statement to call the articel "bogus" when the location is easily sourced, and the article is 19 words according to DYK Check, not 3 as the user suggests. Sam Sailor 23:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Crappy coordinates that have now been corrected. But this one was easy to source with just English language GBook sources, so please re-evaluate Mme/MM (Alexandermcnabb—Lugnuts—Softlavender), it meets GEOLAND. Sam Sailor 20:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sam Sailor: Two citations have been added to the article, neither of which confirm that this is a currently extant "suburb of Ras Al Khaimah". This 1985 citation [20] says that Al Mataf was an area of settlement at the port of Julfar (now Ras Al Khaimah) from the mid 14th C to the mid 17th C. This 2001 citation [21] says it was a walled-in area of the hut settlement Julfar (now Ras Al Khaimah) prior to the 17th C. Both of them speak of archaeology but not of current existence. Softlavender (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a bit too obvious that you have not searched for any sources before slapping on {{unreferenced}} in the articles and copy-pasting a terse and factually wrong vote in this and most of the other nominations in this series, see e.g. the comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Masafirah. What about checking the corrected coordinates if you want "current existence"? Sam Sailor 20:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Sam Sailor. Satisfies GEOLAND and GNG. It does not matter when a topic existed, per NTEMP. James500 (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Guys, believe me (and I know, I know, OR is a baaad thing), there is no settlement called Al Mataf at this location. It's a suburb of RAK city, it's not notable as a settlement and it's not even a named suburb today. So why's it notable? Would it pass new article review? No, it wouldn't. I'm sure it existed once, in some form, but its existence is notable historically for what? Nothing. Today its name - probably a palm grove or field, even a couple of barasti dwellings or a few fisherman's huts - may live on in an occasional business name or even the name of a block but it's part of RAK now if it was ever anything - and was never known as anything in its own right. It doesn't merit an article on WP. Unless you want to name EVERY SINGLE BLOCK of RAK and every other city block or area in the UAE that used to be somewhere that never was quite anywhere. And that's the wormhole I have been trying to avoid in deleting all of these silly, archaic and unsourced - not notable - articles. If there was ever a settlement of Mataf, it was never historically notable and it doesn't exist as a place of note in modern Ras Al Khaimah. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:20, 22 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 02:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus even after two relists
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 03:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This remains a problematic stub, one of about 100 unsourced, inaccurate and plain wrong stubs all created by a single admin ten years ago. I have deleted most of these, which have over the years resulted in false positive geographical carnage on the web. It's not a notable place in of itself and fails WP:GEOLAND in that it is not a 'legally recognised settlement' but is an area, a small urban block, in modern Ras Al Khaimah which is of no notability in its own right other than it's a block in RAK. As are tens of other suburbs, blocks and roads which we don't name on WP and which, if I did attempt to start pages for them all, would all fail new article review. As would this article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:25, 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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. After reading the arguments I am not satisfied that there is anything that can be called a workable consensus to either keep or delete. Sorry, but after three relists it's time to call this a hung jury and declare a mistrial. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

T. Roth and Another Pretty Face[edit]

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

I am not seeing anything in the article that would suggests it passes WP:NMUSIC (or WP:GNG). Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The nominator has to remember WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. A deletion discussion is not supposed to be about the present state of the article, but what it could be if sources exist. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- True, I should've said that I've also failed to locate any good coverage in my search. Did you find anything useful? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although there are some minor claims to notability ([22]), I couldn't find enough sources that would suggest passing WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 08:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For this particular band I was only able to find that one very brief mention in a book (also located by the last voter) and one notice of a reunion show ([23]). That book entry is currently footnote #9 in the article; some of the other sources there are merely listings of the band's existence at the usual aggregation sites, and some are actually about the later activities of frontman T. Roth. I was able to find some additional stuff about his much longer career ([24], [25]). If anyone wants create it, an article on T. Roth might actually be viable. That article could list the brief existence of this little band, but the band itself has not demonstrated enough notability for its own article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be fine with soft deletion through redirection to T. Roth biography, if anyone wants to take a stab at it... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Mornig Call looks OK. There is good coverage in Beckerman, Jim (11 May 2007), "Pre-KISS, there were these guys ; Another Pretty Face, all made up", The Record. The Steven Blush book which gives a little coverage states that they got "raves in Rock Scene and Melody Maker" indicating further coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources listed above that indicates significant coverage in magazines and books so likely passing WP:GNG thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:23, 22 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 02:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus even after two relists
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 03:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I removed some deadlinks. Most remaining refs are things like allmusic, itunes, youtube, i.e. run of the mill stuff that doesn't speak to notability. Fails WP:NMUSIC, and the handful of refs to actual media coverage don't provide notability per WP:GNG in my opinion. Yilloslime (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way does the media coverage not provide media coverage for GNG? duffbeerforme (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - What media coverage? All I see is one article in a small town, local newspaper (The Morning Call). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, so that's where you went wrong. WP:NEXIST. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:46, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stefanotti[edit]

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

Not finding enough in article, sources or online to pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR with multiple periodical reviews, including Carmelus [26] and Theological Studies [27] and coverage in this: [28]. WorldCat: [29]. James500 (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Schatzker[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a television journalist, not properly sourced as passing WP:GNG. As always, every journalist is not automatically entitled to an article just because his existence can technically be verified by his own primary source staff profiles -- to get a Wikipedia article, he has to be the subject of coverage in sources that don't issue his paycheque. But this is referenced solely to a staff profile, and as so often happens with journalists it's written more like a thinly veiled rewrite of that staff profile than like a proper encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 15 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 08:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:NEXIST as they certainly are some non-primary sources available, it's just a matter of incorporating them into the article. Even then, I find that may just barely be enough for WP:GNG Handoto (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know what non-primary sources you're talking about, because apart from Bloomberg's own content about itself all I can find is one short piece in Men's Health about his exercise routine (which is not notability-assisting coverage, because it doesn't exist in the context of anything relevant to whether he passes our notability criteria for journalists or not.) Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus even after two relists
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 03:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only lacking in significant coverage from independent sources but also from the primary ones. Fails WP:JOURNALIST, doesn't have any exceptional quality that makes him different from all other news anchors world over. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:04, 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 07:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sad Boy Loko[edit]

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

NPPed the article ages ago and thought it was borderline notable so didnt nominate it for deletion. In light of the subject's recent criminal charges, the sort of info this article has now become a magnet for and general borderline notability I think its now better to err towards deletion. Brustopher (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 21:25, 15 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 04:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus even after two relists
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 03:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable under WP:CRIME, as the victim isn't a renowned figure, and the crime doesn't appear to be unusual or noteworthy. The person didn't achieve notability under WP:MUSICBIO because none of his music charted or received significant critical attention. — Newslinger talk 11:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 08:23, 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 07:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Ingram[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable founder of a PR company with no significant coverage, although he has had appearances on notable shows. Was deleted by WP:PROD for notability reasons, and then restored by request from the subject at WP:REFUND. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 16 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 04:56, 22 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 02:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple references to external links indicating this is not just some guy with a PR company as initial concern suggested. Subject is a notable media personality in Florida (radio, TV, Newpaper), and has been a contributor to Fox, MSNBC, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.200.99.139 (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC) — 47.200.99.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Local notability doesn't count, and being a contributor to a show also isn't an inclusion criterion. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus even after two relists
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 03:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for self-promotion (WP:NOTPROMO), even in the edit summaries. Bakazaka (talk) 05:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to San Clemente, California#Education. While there's no consensus to redirect instead of delete, there's a consensus to not keep this article. Sandstein 08:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our Savior's Lutheran School (California)[edit]

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

This article is primarily based on primary sources and is written more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. This article fails to meet notability for a school. From my own research I did not find any other sources that can be used to prove the school's notability besides primary sources. In addition, the article has been an WP:ORPHANED article since April 2015. Although the school has received the national Blue Ribbon Schools Award, just because the school has done exceptionally well in academics does not mean it's necessarily notable. I would like to hear other opinions on what they think about this article. Thanks. Yanjipy (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to San Clemente, California#Education per WP:ATD and school article guidelines. Please note this could have been done BOLDly without administrative process; minimally, PROD should have been used if you were not comfortable with that. Also, your rambling nomination above doesn't clearly indicate even a reason for deletion. Neither being poorly sourced or WP:PROMO is a reason to delete or even redirect. If you are asserting lack of notability, on that I agree. The proper response would have been a bold redirect. Now, since we are not in agreement and there is no consensus here, at least one other editor will have to !vote in this, an editor had to list this, and yet another editor will have to close this. That's an awful lot of unneeded waste of time. John from Idegon (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Private nursery/pre-school/k-5 school with only 65 students in the elementary grades. No reason to Redirect to San Clemente, California#Education because it is not mentioned there (WP:ASTONISH), nor should it be. MB 02:06, 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 02:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus even after two relists
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 03:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to San Clemente, California#Education. I am in complete agreement with John from Idegon and endorse his argument. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 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 07:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Racci Shay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Only one of the sources in the article actually mentions the subject by name, and that is only in passing. Could not find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Jacona (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 22 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 01:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus even after two relists
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 03:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. I also checked the sources and I am not seeing anything that would pass WP:GNG. Yilloslime (talk) 21:52, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KidsAlive Charity[edit]

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

An advertortorially-toned page on an unremarkable non-profit. Despite being 100+ years old, still does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Created by [[30]] with no other contributions outside this topic, and then edited by a variety of SPAs. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below is a search template using the organization's actual name, Kids Alive International. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Primary source does not confirm notability. Reywas92^Talk 02:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be a major charity in operation for a century and with annual income above £12m, readers would expect Wikipedia to cover it. Will look for sources later, cant access the NYI at present in Europe, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 01:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus even after two relists
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 03:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment have found some significant coverage in reliable sources including this press,this press,this press, and this press so passes WP:GNG. Note: had to use VPN to access some of these from Europe, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:36, 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 redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Concepción. Merge from history possible. Sandstein 08:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Mapuche Mission[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG (on both the the Spanish and English name), promo. Nice story but says hardly anything about the mission itself. The Banner talk 00:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:40, 22 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 01:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Concepción. There is enough independent coverage to warrant a sentence in that article. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 03:32, 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. Tone 07:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Mimran[edit]

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

Non-notable producer. Of the provided sources, all of the coverage in the film-industry related sources is mere-mention and/or WP:ROUTINE. The coverage in the business-related pieces are either mere-mentions in articles primarily about his inherited company, or coverage in press-releases in industry publications (thus not independent).

The only in-depth coverage is this NYPost article, which would make this borderline WP:BLP1E, and about something that's unambiguously negative. If kept, the amount of due weight that would need to be given to what is by coverage the most notable coverage of the subject would make this practically an attack article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (and I am a deletionist). The subject is listed in the infoboxes of the various films that he co-produced, and that is a form of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per subject's producer credits. Finnishela (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Robert, I came to the article through random selection.TechGeekRon (talk) 23:37, 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 redirect to Brünnlitz labor camp. Sandstein 08:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Leipold[edit]

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

Apparent OR; no inline citations offered. The content should be presumed to be dubious / falsified. Created by Special:Contributions/OberRanks currently site-banned for fabricating content and sources. For more info, please see ANI:OberRanks and fabricated sources. Delete per WP:TNT. An option of "delete & redirect" to Brünnlitz labor camp is possible. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially because the author is banned for chronic source and content fabrication. But even without that I'd be doubtful about the article's only source, a biography of Oskar Schindler, and the detail it allegedly provides about Leipold. For example, would Schindler really have documented Leipold's early life from before they met, such that his biographers could include all that information? Unless someone wants to read the book and check, I think we have to assume it's fabricated. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Schindler’s Ark by Tom Keneally, which first drew the world’s attention to the story of Oskar Schindler, barely mentions Leipold. YSSYguy (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brünnlitz labor camp per above. Catrìona (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article was definitely not fabricated. The biographical information matches the same data on the foreign language Wikipedia pages and Leopold's career is further annotated in both Polish and German documents on file at the Holocaust Memorial Museum where is there is high researcher interest in him due to, as is pointed out here, how is barely mentioned in official texts. This article is actually bookmarked in the HMM research room, which is how this came to our attention in fact. Recommend a keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.177.31 (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Vote by apparent sock IP of User:OberRanks struck. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brünnlitz labor camp per above as suggested. Kierzek (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brünnlitz labor camp because Leipold had enough coverage[31][32] that wouldn't require a stand alone article but a redirect is justified. Excelse (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment “keep because there is only scant information available elsewhere” is pretty much the opposite of how WP is meant to function. They may have similar content, but neither the Dutch nor the Polish article (it may be relevant that there is no German article) has any references either. The books found by Excelse contain only passing mentions of Leipold. YSSYguy (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The main thing that drew attention to this deletion was that the nomination stated the article was "dubious and falsified". That is almost fascicle, as Leipold was a major war criminal who was executed for his crimes and not only appears in the central database of SS personnel at the Holocaust Memorial Museum but also on the rolls of the 18th SS division as maintained by the Imperial War Museum. A review of this material shows it to be factual. It is also a bit disturbing that the evidence provided by the nomination appears to link to an issue with another editor and not an actual problem with this article. To top of it off, this deletion appears to be happening on the tail coats of some wide spread deletion of SS and Holocaust material across Wikipedia. For this article, however, he was definitely a real person, and there is histo5rical interest in his career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.177.31 (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody doubts that he existed, but the three extant WP articles (Dutch, English and Polish) are without references and no person has yet provided examples of significant coverage of Leipold - we have above what amounts to two databases that contain some information about him and some books that contain passing mentions. Notability has not been established; if notability can be established in the future then someone of good standing can create an article. YSSYguy (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, look, a sock IP of User:OberRanks. I was wondering when he'd start playing with those. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct that the Polish website is with references. See below. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Brünnlitz labor camp: There are references besides those mentioned above ([33][34] and other material re: Schindler). I looked at the Joseph Leipold Polish article and it has a Bibliography:

== Bibliografia ==

"Obóz w Budzyniu". Retrieved 2015-12-25.
"Obóz w Budzyniu". Retrieved 2015-12-25.
"Kalendarium obozu KL Lublin". Retrieved 2015-12-25.

The first [35] is the Polish. The second [36] is English. The second is on www.deathcamps.org (which might have its own problems on reliability [37]). Deathcamp.org recommended www.holocaustresearchproject.org (HEART) (Holocaust_Era_Asset_Restitution_Taskforce). A search on HEART showed [38] and [39]. I'm not that familiar with what is WP:RS in this field, but so far I am not ready to reject the idea that the subject is notable. As for the facts in the article--I don't see evidence for many of them. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Per Excelse. Some data (I hate to see the loss of legitimate data), but not enough for a separate article. Den... (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ko Eun-bi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. Hergilei (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 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 08:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Hwi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. Hergilei (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable figure skater.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found to verify notable accomplishments. Finnishela (talk) 15:17, 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. Sandstein 08:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Sheveleva[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. Hergilei (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete a non-notable skater.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 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 08:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Smekhnova[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. Hergilei (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable skater.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 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 08:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caelen Dalmer[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. No evidence of significant media coverage. Hergilei (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable ice dancer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 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 08:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Mitrofanova[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Hergilei (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable skater.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:56, 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 delete. Sandstein 08:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Shershak[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Has not competed in years so not likely to meet criteria in future. Hergilei (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable skater.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment. The article, as it stands today, seems to miss vital data. See here, for example, for her 2014 competition. Rosario (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After further investigation, I noticed that the data in my link above was already included in the articel in the 2013-14 Russian national competition. She ended in the 18th position. So, unfortunately, there is no notability. Rosario (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[HeptnerSludskiy1972-1] Heptner, V. G.; Sludskii, A. A. (1992) [1972]. Mlekopitajuščie Sovetskogo Soiuza. Moskva: Vysšaia Škola [Mammals of the Soviet Union, Volume II, Part 2]. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution and the National Science Foundation. pp. 83–202. ISBN 90-04-08876-8.

[Haas_al2005-2] Haas, S.K.; Hayssen, V.; Krausman, P.R. (2005). "Panthera leo" (PDF). Mammalian Species. 762: 1–11. doi:10.1644/1545-1410(2005)762[0001:PL]2.0.CO;2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 July 2017.

[Mazak1981-3] Mazák, V. (1981). "Panthera tigris" (PDF). Mammalian Species. 152 (152): 1–8. doi:10.2307/3504004. JSTOR 3504004. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 March 2012.

[minn-4] Packer, C. "Frequently asked questions". University of Minnesota Lion Research Project. Retrieved 28 June 2011.

[S&S02-5] Sunquist, M.; Sunquist, F. (2002). Wild Cats of the World (1st ed.). Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. pp. 7–350. ISBN 978-0-22-677999-7.

[Partington1835-6] Charles Frederick Partington (1835). "Felis, the cat tribe". The British cyclopæedia of natural history. Orr & Smith.

[BJotLS2011-7] Yamaguchi, N.; Kitchener, A. C.; Gilissen, E.; MacDonald, D. W. (2009). "Brain size of the lion (Panthera leo) and the tiger (P. tigris): implications for intrageneric phylogeny, intraspecific differences and the effects of captivity". Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 98 (1): 85–93. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2009.01249.x.

[TOTW2010-8] Ronald Tilson, Philip J. Nyhus (2010), "Tiger morphology", Tigers of the world, Academic Press, ISBN 978-0-8155-1570-8

[Wood1976-9] Wood, Gerald L. (1976). The Guinness Book of Animal Facts and Feats. Guinness Superlatives. ISBN 978-0-900424-60-1. Retrieved 2017-10-16.

[Wood1983-10] Wood, G. L. (1983). The Guinness Book of Animal Facts and Feats. Sterling Publishing. ISBN 978-0-85112-235-9.

[BCKM1993-11] Brakefield, Tom (1993). Big Cats: Kingdom of Might. Voyageur Press. p. 44. ISBN 978-0-89658-329-0.

[EnglishCyclopædia1867-12] Charles Knight, ed. (1867). The English Cyclopaedia. Retrieved 2014-08-28.

[PennyCyclopædia1846-13] The Penny Cyclopædia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. Vol. 14. Charles Knight and Co. 1846-01-09. Retrieved 2014-08-28.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]