Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 October	10 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fëa and hröa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, all information is sourced to the book itself instead of secondary sources. --Joshualouie711^talk 23:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, this is Wikia material that fails GNG. The article is already there and the sources from this one should be transwikied before it is deleted._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does wiktionary do Elvish? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:34, 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. Sandstein 19:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crittendens[edit]

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

small chain of 7 stores, sourced to their own advertisements and newspaper notices. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly notable. Sources currently in article are advertisements or routine news, but there's The Australian (Rare old vintage, 1 October 2010) and possibly more. That the business was taken over and mostly closed or rebranded and there's another business with a similar name may make it more difficult to search. Peter James (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the content. There is a reasonable amount of related WP:NEXIST out there, more than enough to support GNG, including enough I think to expand the article content a bit further, but I am not sure whether the main subject should be the chain of stores or the family of which the stores were a key part. Perhaps the main article should be the multigenerational family with a redirect from Crittendens (stores) to the family article ? Aoziwe (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the nomnation I have made some changes to the entry. These include linking to the abovementioned article in The Australian. I have also linked to a sound recording, available online, of a 2001 interview with one of the principals of the company that deals, in part, with the early history of the company. I will continue looking for additional sources that might shed further light on the 65 year history of the business.(Histragic (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some of the sources are weak, but The Australian source from 2010 is very strong given the fact its around for 100years even continuing to trade under the name despite a national retailer purchasing the chain show it is notable. Putting this much under the name of any individual even the founder would be inappropriate as well given many of the event taking place after his passing in 1954. Gnan garra 14:21, 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. Sandstein 19:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Dateline Hotel[edit]

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

This is a 126 room hotel in Tonga. Its website is the 6,529,993th most visited website in the world according to Alexa (https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/tanoadateline.com). What is notable here? Am i missing something? Uhooep (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is the largest hotel in Tonga, if that's something. However, it does seem to lack coverage in reliable sources — a search turned up very little other than advertising or passing mentions. Brad v 04:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've added some details and refs: Loop is an independent source and reports the reopening of the hotel by the King. It is by no means every new hotel which gets opened by a country's head of state! The government press release also makes it clear that the hotel was regarded as a significant tourism resource, worth preserving. Our Pacific is a commercial web page but they are careful to report their evaluation separately from "what the hotel says about itself". They provide good background information including its status as a VIP hotel (from that point of view, like the Bayerischer Hof in Munich). --Mirokado (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(update) I have added further refs for some events following the refurbishments, which confirm the hotel's significant role, and also two mentioning China's investment in the hotel. This is significant because of the claim that it was China's first entry into free-market Pacific tourism, thus a harbinger for China's current economic influence. --Mirokado (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had a look, with those updates the article looks fine to satisfy WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article satisfies WP:GNG. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – while much of the coverage of this hotel is indeed promotional or routine, the material found by Mirokado is enough to convince me that the topic satisfies WP:GNG. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:12, 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 19:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

London School of Business[edit]

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

Article created by an SPA about a non-notable business which claims to be "a Graduate Business School [which] offers Undergraduate, Postgraduate and Master's Degree programmes in Business Management, Marketing, Finance and International Business". I have since cut this article way back as I cannot verify any of this. There is literally nothing about this establishment anywhere except Companies House which lists its business as "First-degree level higher education" [1]. It has a sole director, Shamsul Alam, who also claims to be its "marketing manager" on his LinkedIn profile. Their website is very vague in terms of their courses [2]. This establishment is not recognised by the UK government as a degree-awarding institution, see list. Nor as one which awards degrees validated by degree-awarding institutions, see list. Its address is a unit in an east London office building which rents out office space and has dozens of other companies/organizations which list it as their address [3]. Note it is not to confused with London School of Business and Finance. Nor is it to be confused with another "London School of Business" operated by Training & Advanced Studies in Management And Communications Ltd (India) which closed amid scandal in 2011 [4]. Voceditenore (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further Note: The LSB claims to have two other businesses in their "group", Study Britannia and the somewhat dubiously named Eten College [5]. Companies House lists Shamsul Alam is the sole director and sole owner of all three companies [6], [7]. [8]. Voceditenore (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Universities. Voceditenore (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete London School of Business warmly welcomes you to it’s friendly and stimulating environment of world class learning. So just for mis-use of that apostrophe.

For other issues, here's the campus: [9]. We need secondary sources, especially when this establishment is so obviously tiny. Their own website claims that authorised to offer Level 3 Diploma in Business, which is about as much as a decent secondary school and far below degree level. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the sole accrediting body for this is the virtually unknown Awards for Training and Higher Education (UK) which got into a spot of bother with the UK government this year, see here Voceditenore (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ATHE is very well known - but they operate to diploma level, not degree. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while I am gladly of broad inclusion of tertiary education bodies, this is so lacking in reliability as to question its existence as an educational body, let alone being an active degree-awarding organisation. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. —Madrenergic^talk 03:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – so non-notable it not only fails to make lists of real colleges but doesn't even make HEDD's list of fake colleges! Robminchin (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:GNG and not an accredited degree-awarding institution. Just Chilling (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted it seems to fail notability requirements, and the other arguments raised above for deletion seem sound. Dunarc (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete snow. Completely agree. Can't find anything legitimate of value. Den... (talk) 16:52, 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. Sandstein 18:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freskanova[edit]

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

Another non-notable record label that only receives faint mentions and name checks in usable sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Fresh Records (UK); Freskanova seems to have been one of their subsidiaries per this source. As nom notes little reliable source coverage other than passing mentions, so does not meet CORPDEPTH/GNG. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IntoThinAir, it's not the same Fresh Records. If you scroll to the bottom of the Fresh Records (UK) article you'll see a line about another dance label of the same name starting in 1992: this is the Fresh Records that was the parent company of Freskanova. But it has nothing to do with the label that is the main subject of the article, and the 1992 label shouldn't have been tagged on the end of the article like this. Richard3120 (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I have stricken my previous vote per this discovery. Thanks for pointing this out Richard3120. IntoThinAir (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article has three artists with articles, i.e. notable. This is a bit below my threshold of NMUSIC#5, which is certainly open to interpretation. However, said "notable" artists also don't have any independent references, so I think it's pretty safe to say this is not a notable record label. There is significant coverage at CMJ [10], which *can* be a reliable source, but this certainly reads PR-based promotion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

78.26: actually, it turns out to be just one notable artist. The Freestylers have had many hits, both in the UK and internationally, so they pass WP:BAND (although it should be noted that their biggest hits came after leaving the Freskanova label). But Mad Doctor X and Monty Props are in fact aliases of the same person, who has never troubled the charts under any of his aliases. Richard3120 (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard3120: Thanks for the update, your analysis is most useful. It would appear the label appeared on the charts in a few countries because of the Freestylers. It would be convenient to redirect this towards Freestylers, but it doesn't appear to be a vanity label, so that would be incorrect. I presume this appeared on vinyl, and not just CD/download, so there is a group who presumably seek encyclopedic information about this label. Not changing my !vote, but worth considering. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bossmusic[edit]

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

After WP:BEFORE source searches, it is evident that this record label fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and no indication label is culturally significant in any way. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Volkswagen (timeline)[edit]

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

Not even an article, just a bunch of templates holding different periods of VW's history. Given how these are cut up I am doubtful that it's practical to make it one giant list. Seyasirt (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant to Category:Volkswagen Group timeline templates and I see no other purpose for it. --Sable232 (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Sable232. It does not make sense to keep this article when the information is already present in its proper place. Den... (talk) 16:53, 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. Sandstein 19:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley-Marie Coppin[edit]

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

Non notable glamour model - the sources in the article (bar this one) are all 2-bit mentions,

The sources on Google News are even worse (NSFW):

"Hayley-Marie Coppin mostró todas sus partes íntimas". (Translates as: Hayley-Marie Coppin showed all her private parts)
"Halyey-Marie Coppin, totalmente desnuda en la playa". (Translates as: Halyey-Marie Coppin, totally naked on the beach)
"Hayley Marie Coppin - chân dài bốc lửa cuồng West Ham". (Translates as: Hayley Marie Coppin - West Ham's fiery long legs)
"Hayley-Marie Coppin, su topless más sensual en el agua". (Translates as: Hayley-Marie Coppin, her most sensual topless in the water)
"El desnudo total de Hayley-Marie Coppin". (Translates as: The total nude of Hayley-Marie Coppin)
"Hayley Marie Coppin se animó a mostrar de más". (Translates as: Hayley Marie Coppin was encouraged to show more)

Source 3 has been copied from the Wikipedia article and the rest are galleries of her naked .... Fails MODEL and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:ENT; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 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. Sandstein 18:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Kimberly Trip[edit]

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

Non-notable band that does not meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG, per assorted source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing any key indicators of notability such as something on a WP:CHART. Music was released on non-notable labels and the article seems WP:PROMO. Teemu08 (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There seems sufficient consensus that the additional available sourcing is sufficient to satisfy notability (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transparent Armor Gun Shield[edit]

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

Military hardware, sourced only to a press release. A search finds only one sort of reliable source ([11]), making this fail WP:GNG. Sandstein 15:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Armor magazine has a full-page article in this issue on page six. Together with the Defense Industry Daily source mentioned above is enough to pass GNG. The press release in the article is from the vendor, so a poor source for notability, but there is also a USMC press release which has more significance to my mind. There are also numerous passing mentions such as this book and this. SpinningSpark 18:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Spinningspark. Subject seems notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Spinningspark. Widely deployed military kit is typically notable, and in this case the sources are there. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 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. Sandstein 19:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mixin Network[edit]

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

New crypto company with no indication of notability. Article creator is likely a paid editor who's written a number of articles about dodgy companies such as deleted Tomtop.com. Zanhe (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 01:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 14:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably. Dime-a-dozen. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to locate references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kampa Borgoyary[edit]

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

I could not establish that he has the coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The role is not an instant WP:NPOL freebie, but the sourcing isn't good enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 07:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Derby H:O Racing Club[edit]

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

Unsourced. Fails WP:GNG. Tera TIX 12:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tera TIX 12:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tera TIX 12:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ping PMC who participated in merge discussion. Tera TIX 12:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find anything relevant in terms of sources at the time I commented on the merge discussion. This is fancruft. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 19:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zschirnsteine[edit]

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

This article is about two hills, each of which have their own articles elsewhere. No new or different info is on this article. It's a shame really because it is clearly written well by good editors in the perfect style. I just think it's redundant. I may have misunderstood, however. Dr Jarse (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. This article is really about the single massif which has two separate summits, one of which is the highest in the region. However, provided no information was lost (i.e. anything not in the other two were moved), it could be turned into a dab page, but I wouldn't want to delete it outright. They were all based on German Wikipedia, where they have the same structure and the articles are about the same length. Bermicourt (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an article about two hills which both have their own articles - I wonder if it's better off merging whatever information isn't in the two articles and then creating a dab page? SportingFlyer talk 12:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I really don't see the problem with having a brief overview article here, even though we have articles on both hills. They are frequently referred to collectively; a range of hills is often more notable than the individual hills of which it is composed. This may well be the case here, so the name should lead somewhere on Wikipedia. This article, for instance, discusses the geology of the Zschirnsteine as a group. Deletion is not appropriate whatever is done with the page. A dab page is also not appropriate. Zschirnsteine is a plural word. It cannot possibly mean anything that is singular, so neither hill would belong on a dab page so named. SpinningSpark 15:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several ways of presenting the information can be imagined. If all is merged into one page, this is the most natural title. But as the Großer Zirnstein looks like it should have its own page, having three pages seems a reasonable arrangement. —Kusma (t·c) 08:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely high quality (quality=fitness for its purpose) short article performing what is necessary and good for coverage and for directing readers to more information about the separate peaks. Not redundant, not bad by any reasoning. The "Good article" system probably won't recognize anything that isn't 10,000 words long, but we oughta have some kind of "excellent short article" award for such like this, including conveying that it is deemed optimal length. --Doncram (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to One Night in Turin. Sandstein 19:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One Night in Turin (Original Motion Picture Score)[edit]

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

Soundtrack of a documentary movie - doesn't pass WP:NALBUM. Sourced entirely to reviewgraveyard which does not seem reliable (otherwise a merge to the movie might be in order). From my BEFORE it does not seem that the soundtrack is discussed separately from the movie. Icewhiz (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to music section of the movie’s article. No independent notability, not much to say, not likely to be expanded, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the film article, as not independently notable, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Sayed Ansary[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Imam of local mosque. Sources in article are a story in a local paper (Get West London) on how his car was vandalized, his mosque's website, a piece (deadlink) in "Just news BD" on an event in the mosque, and a profile on the defunct islamessential website. Not much else in BEFORE. Icewhiz (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Islam Essential was a Channel S TV programme, on which Ansary was a presenter. So the capsule bio there is not independent and does not contribute towards notability. Searches of the usual Google types, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, and ProQuest found nothing deeper in reliable secondary sources than what is already cited. The story of his parked car being vandalized by a racist yobbo (or yobbos) is sad and disturbing, but insufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete clergy of an individual congregation are rarely notable. Sourcing consists of mentions in non -notable, local news sites that fails WP:SIGCOV. My searches in news and news archives produce nothing on him, although there is another, also non-notable man by this name in south Asia. Fails WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amarachi Orjinma[edit]

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

Footballer who appears to be failing WP:NFOOTY. No appearances for senior NT. Nigerian women's league isn't listed as Fully-pro.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that subject does not meet WP:FOOTBALL, I remember I expressed such fears while moving to mainspace. While I respect the consensus among volunteers within that WikiProject, I think it will be more reasonable to include a criteria such that all top scorers and best players in top-level women leagues may be regarded as notable if they are well sourced. Even though, it might not be a fully professional league based on FIFA's standard, I can authoritatively state that the girls who partake in the league are breadwinners for their families, it is the most consistent women football league on the continent. We have national team players from several African countries coming to play here. Orjinma winning top scorer is a huge deal. I feel this is a vital encyclopaedic BLP that should have an article on Wikipedia. And its not like Orjinma is a one-season wonder, I am aware that she started for Rivers Angels in their week 10 league fixture on October 7. I am basing my keep vote based on the significance of this topic in ten years time and my belief that it meets the requirement for a BLP based on being a top scorer in a top-level women football league. And why did the nominator not give me a notification of this discussion on my talkpage? HandsomeBoy (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The suggested exception does not conform with policy and is stretching guidelines to breaking point. W C M_email 11:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete article really needs improvement if we are to keep it. No DOB? No awards? I don't think our criteria should be breadwinning women. Fred(talk) 15:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Unfortunately the three credible football awards in Nigeria, NFF Awards (started in 2018), Nigeria Pitch Awards (started in 2013, but only included a category for women in 2016), League Bloggers Award (started in 2011, but only began including a women category in 2017) didn't provide a platform for her in 2014. I am really happy that in terms of digital coverage, things are really changing from the Nigerian perspective, both in terms of coverage and seriousness of administrators towards local women football. At least, we have a league that former foreign-based players can return to, if their services are no-longer needed abroad. The pay might not be up there yet, but its something and regular, especially for the big clubs. Online coverage is definitely better than how it used to be 5 years ago. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL and also WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rumah Sakit[edit]

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

No sources, not obviously notable Blitzcream (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find sources for "'Rumah Sakit' 'San Francisco'". The former term is a common Indonesian word so it wasn't helpful. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:16, 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. Sandstein 19:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Gandhi kidnap plot[edit]

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

Insignificant incident to have separate article. Two refs [12] and [13] cited in the article says that the kidnap plot was “a prominent political personality’’ who, sources said, was none other than Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi. Speculation is considered as a real in the article. This two line article is better deleted or merged with Rahul Gandhi. See this reference too. Nizil (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the speculation comment. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS not an incident that generated lasting widespread coverage. I have merged the contents to Jaish-e-Mohammed#Notable_incidents --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, perfect case of NOTNEWS. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raynard Jackson[edit]

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

Expired PROD, wasn't sure about it, so here it is. Sources are currently poor, his name appears quite a bit but mostly in passing. I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's sufficiently notable, though references could be improved to demonstrate that more fully. – Athaenara ✉ 07:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 19:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noor Al Suwaidi[edit]

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

Promotional biography created by user "Uaearthub" - pretty obvious COI. Sources are primary and mainly press releases. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources are not all primary. I saw several independent sources in a search: example. The article intention might be to create a promotional article, but its text is fairly neutral. I do get the sense that the sources and PR around her might be the result of business promotion rather than independent recognition. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 19:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Wave Feminists, I'd suggest either deleting this outright, or redirecting to 2017 Women's March#Partnership controversies. Herndon-de la Rosa is the founder of the organization, which was not considered notable at AFD despite a brief news blip when the Women's March received some flak for partnering with them, and doesn't seem to have meaningful additional notability of her own. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 17:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 17:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 17:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 17:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Roscelese for bring this up. I think she obviously meets the criteria for notability: – She receive significant coverage in 2017 and 2018 in multiple published secondary sources, including leading American publications (e.g., the NYT, the Atlantic) – In most cases, this coverage is dedicated to covering issues related to her decisions and beliefs; she is not a trivial component of the articles – Her notability is not confined to a single event; she is now considered one of the most important leaders within the American pro-life movement, on a par with Abby Johnson, for example; her beliefs and comments are frequently tied to current events – Additional criteria that she satisfies are as an "opinion maker" with a significant following Revfulop1994 (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two articles in the Washington Post this year, and an interview in NPR found for a 3 minute search. Has coverage, passed WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:38, 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. Sandstein 18:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuhiko Yamashita[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to minor passing mentions and name checks. Furthermore, the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding sufficient independent, reliable source coverage to meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:41, 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. WP:TOOSOON -- RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikka Zaildar (film series)[edit]

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

Per precedent, we do not generally have film series articles when there are less than three films in a series. There clearly isn't enough content to make an exception in this case. --wooden superman 13:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 13:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 13:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, has Nikka Zaildar 3 started principal filming? If so, that criterion has been met. SpinningSpark 19:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Inadequate quorum, and Woodensuperman may want to answer Spinningspark's question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To answer my own question; according to this, filming is due to start Jan-Feb 2019. SpinningSpark 07:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So that's a "no" then. :) --wooden superman 15:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep already scheduled to start working on third film. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Scheduled to start working on" does not meet notability guideline WP:NFF. No reason to make an exception here. There is no benefit of having this article when all the information is already in the two film articles. --wooden superman 15:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:COMMONSENSE applies here (a policy, which trumps your alleged, but unlinked, consensus). It looks very likely that filming will begin in the new year, at which point it will meet the criterion. In any case WP:NFF says nothing about series. It is about whether a film should have a standalone page. This is not a standalone page for Nikka Zaildar 3 so NFF does not apply. On the other hand, the announcement of the third film is reported in numerous sources and is easily WP:V. We can therefore have it covered in Wikipedia, just not on its own page and a page on the series is a good compromise. SpinningSpark 15:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Small nitpick - WP:COMMONSENSE is an essay, not a policy. So pretty much worthless. --Gonnym (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. It's an explanatory supplement to IAR per WP:SUPPLEMENTAL. SpinningSpark 17:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explanatory supplement is still not a policy and still is as worthless as an essay. From WP:COMMONSENSE: This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. and from WP:SUPPLEMENTAL: Informative and instructional pages are typically edited by the community; while not policies or guidelines themselves [...] In comparison to policies and guidelines, information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, as they have not been thoroughly vetted by the community. - useful to understand the links you throw around. --Gonnym (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The announcement of the third film and the connection between the two existing films can be included in a "sequel" or "sequels" section. There is no benefit to this article - it is useless and unnecessary and provides no additional "overview" information. Even something like House (1986 film), which has three sequels, does not have a series article. --wooden superman 09:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment above. SpinningSpark 15:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Woodensuperman's point re: House. See also Before Sunrise and its sequels. Just because we can have an article doesn't mean the topic deserves one or must have one, especially if there's insufficient material to warrant said article. For examples outside film, see Mr. Mercedes and its sequels in Stephen King's "Bill Hodges" trilogy. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft space It would be very difficult to build this article into a meaningful series overview while it currently comprises just two films. If you look at something like Rocky (film series) you can see that once you get past the plot summaries it mainly comprises of tables and charts providing a comparative overview of different aspects of the series. On Wikipedia film series articles generally cover series of at least three films. If there is just one film and a sequel the convention is to just add a "sequel" section to the article about the first film and cove common aspects there i.e. you don't need tables and a whole new article to compare just two films. If a third film is added to the series then a film series article may be justified, but if it hasn't actually started filming yet then the assumption of a third film as a foregone conclusion would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Betty Logan (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. My crystal ball insists there'll be a 3rd series but I turn it off with a snap. -The Gnome (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There really isn't anything worth saving in this article, the first two films have a brief synopsis and there's nothing about the third except it's being made. Ifnord (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The merge suggestion does not appear to gain any traction —SpacemanSpiff 02:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IONA Entertainment[edit]

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

Non notable venue inside a mall. Most of the references that can be obtained by searching are about Chris Gayle picking a minority stake in the company. The existing references are not very promising either. Probable case of paid editing going by the history of the now blocked user. Jupitus Smart 18:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion. This is only a brief article, and a merge with article on Chris Gayle might be possible. Vorbee (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chris Gayle seems to be the decent alternative to outright deletion. -The Gnome (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's really not much to save here, I don't think a merge with Chris Gayle would really benefit that article. Ifnord (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge. I have no particular feeling on deletion (other than a general feeling that most mall articles are crap and should be deleted). I certainly haven't researched this one. But, if it does get deleted, I suggest it not be merged. Gayle signed an advertising contract. In the context of his biography, that's total trivia. By the same token, somebody typing "iona entertainment" into a search box would be surprised to be taken to an article about a cricketer. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abie Ames[edit]

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

Not seeing any evidence that this individual meets WP:ANYBIO. Marquardtika (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article didn't have any sources, but a Google Search shows significant coverage in secondary sources about him and his influence on Mississippi blues, including in newspapers, books and a 1999 PBS documentary called Boogaloo & Eden: Sustaining the Sound. I updated his article with several more citations so that it satisfies WP:GNG notability requirements for significant coverage in secondary sources. The article still needs some work, but it's alreadybeen tagged for needing additional verification and help with overall encyclopedic tone. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are a lot of tangential mentions of the subject, but most of the ones I can find seem to be obituaries at various outlets. Still, I'd say he just barely meets WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Morgan[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO. Marquardtika (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Birmingham isn't the largest city nor is it the smallest. This isn't a keep vote on WP:NEXIST grounds but I would suspect there should be at least some sources about him, and probably enough to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 11:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if somebody can actually show some solid sources before closure, delete otherwise. Birmingham is certainly a large enough city that a substantive and properly sourced article about a mayor would be deemed to pass WP:NPOL #2, but the role is not so "inherently" notable that we would need to keep a short primary sourced stub which states only that the person existed, the end. And while it is true that it's entirely possible to write a bad, seemingly deletable article about a person who actually passes our notability criteria, the saving play in a case like that is not simply presuming that better sources probably exist, but showing hard proof that better sources do exist (and I can't be the angel of salvation here, as I only have access to Canadian sourcing in his era, not the American kind where he might actually have some coverage.) So this needs to go if it doesn't see improvement, and then can certainly be recreated again in the future if somebody actually puts in the effort to write and source something better than this — but as it stands, nothing about him is so "inherently" notable that it would be necessary to keep it in this form. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I went ahead and added a 1971 obituary and expanded the article somewhat. Looking through newspapers.com, he was racially "moderate" whatever that means, but I couldn't in my quick search find anything about his role in civil rights movements (he did oppose a law in Birmingham banning interracial sports-playing(?)), which would, to me, be the most interesting part of his bio. For a bit of context, see this notable letter to Morgan from MLK. That material may exist and should be included. Without that, his funding the Birmingham Zoo, which initially bore his name, would be the top claim to fame. I'm not saying weak keep because that is a fairly notable thing to have bear your name (even if it no longer does) and proves some lasting interest. Plus, as Bearcat says, Birmingham is a significant city. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mayor of a biggish city for 8 years. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayor of a city with under 250,000 population is not inherently notable. The lack of other than local coverage is indicative of lack of notability. The absence of controversy probably contributes to this lack of coverage. It is true that pre-Internet people are harder to document, but notable people get discussed in books, magazine articles and newspapers that can be found on subscription services or in libraries. There is nothing to suggest that Mr. Morgan has a claim to notability. He does not qualify under Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Smmurphy. There's sufficient evidence of coverage of his political career, especially his eight years as mayor of the state's largest city, which was bigger then than now (in 1960, it had some 340,000 people) [14]. A first cut at GBooks turns up a number of sources about his conflicted relationship to the civil rights movement, including the university press books "The Most Segregated City in America": City Planning and Civil Rights in Birmingham, 1920-1980 [15] and But for Birmingham: The Local and National Movements in the Civil Rights Struggle [16], as well as the Pulitzer Prize winning Carry Me Home: Birmingham, Alabama, the Climactic Battle of the Civil Rights Revolution , which among other things notes that the closest thing Birmingham had to a traditional political machine at that time was "the outgoing mayor Jimmy Morgan's network of faithful employees and interested city contractors", known to some as the "House of Morgan".[17] --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's covered in books and scholarly sources on the Civil Rights Era, and his role in the Birmingham Botanical Garden and Birmingham Zoo can be sourced. Article needs improvement, but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Birmingham Alabama may not be a first rank city but, at that point in its history, in the Civil Rights Era, it certainly wasn't insignificant. It's unlikely that any expansion of the article would (or could) end up as a hagiography. Cabayi (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Mayor of a global city is generally considered notable. While not a top-tier global city, it's still one on the article for it. Don't know what User:Cabayi was saying about civil rights because I don't believe he took action for or against it, but he is notable regardless. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discounting the blocked Sakaimover. Sandstein 19:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce C. H. Liu[edit]

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

Promotional (auto)biography. If the subject is notable, this would still not be a valid article - WP:TNT would be required to even approximate to NPOV. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's really just a mass listing of awards and titles the subject has anyway, which serves no encyclopedic value on its own. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

but may show that a person meets a SNG ie. WP:ANYBIO and/or WP:AUTHOR, note: i am not saying that this is the case here. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think she satisfies WP:PROF on the basis of the level of citation she has received [18] in a low citation field and the various chairs, directorships and chief editorships she has held, the awards she has received. There are more than four hundred library holdings of her books: [19]. The article doesn't look particularly promotional, most of it looks like entirely neutral statement of simple fact, it is not like its full of superlatives. James500 (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Seems like Liu would meet WP:PROF#8 as the chief editor of Router: A Journal of Cultural Studies ISSN 1816-0514 if it is indeed a notable journal. The journal may still be notable even if it doesn't have an article. It is mentioned in the [20] on page 185 as being founded in 2005. Possibly due to the language barrier, I had trouble finding sources. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. on balance, I'd accept notability on the basis of the books., DGG ( talk ) 08:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Probaly meets WP:PROF as a published author in peer-reviewed journals and cited by a moderate number of other authors. Being the director of the International Center for Cultural Studies of the University System of Taiwan probably also makes her notable but the language barrier makes it difficult to find sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For lack of a substantive claim to notability. The editor status and administrative duties are a start, but they don't seem to have led anywhere. I would recommend keeping if either of these two statements were supported by discussion in reliable independent sources: Liu's works concentrate on the question of aesthetics, ethics, and politics, ranging from Marx, Freud and Lacan, to contemporary critical theories as well as Chinese political thoughts. She has been a critic of East-Asian modernity and internal coloniality, particularly through re-reading the Chinese intellectual history of the twentieth century and the contemporary political-economy in inter-Asian societies. But they don't seem to be. (That means no conference/book/journal bio-blurbs.) --Bejnar (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the nom thinks they can write something better, they should do so from the current version. WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline and so is not a reason to delete. WP:IMPERFECT is the actual editing policy and this draft doesn't seem so bad anyway. Andrew D. (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: What about the lack of discussion of her work in independent secondary sources? --Bejnar (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew Davidson Sakaimover (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per DGG and others. @Bejnar: When you say there are no book etc bio-blurbs do you mean things like this? It's a contributor blurb in a book not edited by herself: undoubtedly self-written but presumably assessed as correct by the editors. PamD 16:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that bio-blurbs don't count, they often occur in footnotes in academic papers, in conference materials, and in journal prefaces for editors, as well as on the backs or flyleaves of books. Your example on page 299, of Google book id=IrlV9llG94QC, is exactly what I mean. Where is there actual discussion of her work? --Bejnar (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The reason we have WP:PROF is because it is usually not helpful to look for substantial discussion of someone's work,: Unless they are famous, there is unlikely to be anything very substantial, but if they have published books that get reviewed or papers that get cited there is always something, even they are by any reasonable standard non-notable.

(2)You are however correct that the bio in a conference publication does not contribute to notability -- and is not usually helpful at all. Most academics have a more or less standard brief bio they use for these purposes, sometimes but not always tailoring it to the occasion. They are not reviewed by the editors, unless it strikes them as absurd, but they've usually seen it before on all the person's other contributions. The most that gets done to them is truncation if there is not enough space. I don't consider them anywhere near as reliable as a formal CV or official personal web page. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. I'll move this to User:Flooded with them hundreds/sandbox/Alex Light. No consensus on ovulation requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Light[edit]

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

Immediate recreation of a deleted PROD. Doesn't meet the notability guidelines set out in WP:NGRIDIRON, i.e. he never played in a regular season game for a professional football organization. Also fails WP:NCOLLATH. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Draftify Maybe this is best to be in draft space. Govvy (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify He's currently on the active roster, played in all four preseason games, and is borderline WP:GNG. Draft space seems best for this one. SportingFlyer talk 00:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or incubate this egg could hatch any time now... but it hasn't yet.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG with sources like The News & Advance [21], Richmond Times-Dispatch [22] and The Roanoke Times [23]. Although he hasn't played a game but likely will, he is presumed notable as he has signed for a tier one club and WP:NATHLETE is typically for players whose club is not clearly professional. We've had worse athlete articles that barely met any notability guidelines yet were still kept at AFD. Flooded with them hundreds 06:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... the question is, are these an "and finally" kind of article that we exclude, or a "feature" article that we include... might be a feature. This is why we have discussions!--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If these are the sources, and we assume he never plays a snap in the NFL, this would at best seem to me like a WP:BLP1E fail based on the coverage presented, ignoring the fact this is a borderline WP:GNG at best. He went to Richmond, these are articles from Richmond and Roanoke (both in the area) from the same time frame writing about how a local college player made the NFL, and the News Advance is a trivial transactional mention. I think he's likely to be notable soon, but I don't think there's enough here to keep in the event he never makes it. SportingFlyer talk 12:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No time right now to do a deep search (will try to do a better search later today or tomorrow) but here are a few examples of coverage that include articles from 2013, 2017, and multiple different months in 2018 (eliminating any supposed BLP1E claim): (1) "Lightly recruited Spiders tackle Alex Light went from overlooked to pro prospect, Richmond Times-Dispatch, 8/6/17; (2) "Potential NFL path of ex-Spider tackle Alex Light could center around snapping the ball", Richmond Times-Dispatch, 4/24/18; (3) Alex Light Signs Free Agent Contract With The Packers, The New Castle Record, 5/1/18; (4) Salem’s Alex Light signs free agent contract with the Green Bay Packers, Salem Times-Register, 5/3/18; (5) Against the odds, ex-Spiders lineman Alex Light captured Green Bay Packers' roster spot, Richmond Times-Dispatch, 9/3/18; (6) "Light at the end of the Lambeau Field tunnel", Salem Times-Register, 9/6/18; and (7) Salem's Light commits to Richmond; Doll-Hennis, Brown to VMI, The Roanoke Times, 12/19/13. Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble understanding the purpose of WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH based on the above, Cbl62. In this day and age, every single college athlete that has any shot at making the NFL will be covered by news coverage about their journey, mostly likely regional or even national depending on where the player lives. I thought the purpose of WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH is to clarify when coverage of these types of people goes from routine to truly notable. Based on your comments above, you seem to believe Alex Light doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH, but he does meet WP:GNG, but only because of coverage from his college athletic career! It is a paradox that means that WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH are almost never applicable to any modern-day college athletes trying to go pro, because there will always be significant enough coverage to meet your understanding of WP:GNG. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of NGRIDIRON and NCOLLATH is to provide guidance on select categories where community consensus is clear that GNG will be satisfied. In the creation as part of NSPORT, the initial voters (myself included) made it clear that these are inclusionary standards only (not exclusionary) and that athletes can still have an article if they pass GNG. Thus, the introductory language to NSPORT: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." I'm not yet saying Light passes GNG; time permitting, I will try to dig deeper later. Cbl62 (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would add to that it is an assumption (and one I do not believe to be true) that "every single college athlete that has any shot at making the NFL will be covered by news coverage about their journey..." further, if it is true "for this day and age" it is most assuredly not true for every day and age. Through the process of building an encyclopedia, we encounter historical topics as well as contemporary. No argument that it gets confusing!--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure he's there yet on WP:GNG grounds - #3 is such a local source it mentions who his grandparents are in the second sentence. #4 is a three-paragraph transactional article in another Virginia local paper. #7 is about his recruitment to Richmond from high school. All the Richmond articles were written by the same beat writer. The best article is roanoke.com - "Salem grad Alex Light 'shocked' to be on Green Bay Packers' roster" - and it's filed under the high school sports section, since he apparently went to high school in a suburb of Roanoke. All of the coverage so far is either about his recruitment to college, which is routine high school sports coverage from 2013, or discusses his signing with the Packers or his potential as a pro prospect. I'm not overly concerned if this is kept or not, but I think a lot of this is routine coverage, and if there's not consensus on that, I think it's still a WP:BLP1E (since the coverage of being recruited from high school coverage doesn't/shouldn't count). I also would agree in general with Gonzo fan2007, though someone can pass WP:GNG without passing WP:GRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. Still, these guidelines are broad enough to encompass any professional player or any college football player with national coverage, leaving us to argue whether local coverage of players who failed to play a professional snap passes WP:GNG or not, which is admittedly a difficult task. SportingFlyer talk 03:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. My main point is that if someone doesn't meet WP:GRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH, then they need to meet WP:GNG due to other reasons that fall outside of their college or professional football career (Devon Cajuste is a perfect example, he became notable because of the show Hard Knocks). If the subject is a professional football player who doesn't meet WP:GRIDIRON, a college athlete who doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH, and doesn't have other any other notable things outside of football, then it should be a WP:BLP1E fail, being that the only national coverage is about their path to the NFL. Whether that is actual WP policy is debatable, but that seems to me to be common sense. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not weighing in on at this time on Alex Light, but, Gonzo, your analysis above is as wrong as it could be. If a college football player never plays pro football, but receives significant coverage in multilple, reliable, and independent sources for his college football career, he passes under WP:GNG. The suggestion that a college football career, spanning as much as four years and 50-plus football games, is a single event that can be disregarded as a WP:BLP1E fail reflects a significant misunderstanding of BLP1E. Your view also ignores the prominence of college football in the USA -- by revenue and average attendance, it is the second biggest sport in the USA behind only the NFL, but ranking ahead of MLB, NBA, NHL, MLS, etc. Cbl62 (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily think that's the argument: the WP:BLP1E argument is the fact Mr. Light (and numerous others) are only notable players because their coverage revolves around their chance to make the NFL. Again, if a player fails WP:NCOLLATH, the only coverage he/she would have received is local coverage, which we should be skeptical of - especially considering there are thousands of college football players every year, and many teams have local sportswriters specifically dedicated to them. SportingFlyer talk 23:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the nominator, I would be supportive of draftifying this to User:Flooded with them hundreds/Alex Light if Flooded with them hundreds would like. Alex Light is on the 53-man roster and may end up playing this season, which would make a lot of this discussion moot in relation to him. This seems to be the prevailing consensus so far. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that. Cbl62 (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me too. SportingFlyer talk 20:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This particular AfD may be rendered moot by Light's appearing in the near future in an NFL game, but players like Light are an ongoing gray area. Some view the existence of significant coverage in local papers to be enough to overcome WP:GNG. Others view such coverage as routine. I tend toward the former, but I also recognize that there is room for reasonable minds to differ in particular cases. Here are some factors that IMO should be weighed in the close cases: (1) the level at which the individual played: Power 5 program > Division 1 FBS non-Power 5 program > FCS program > Division II, III, and NAIA (Division II, III and NAIA players are very rarely notable); (2) how "local" the coverage is: major metropolitan dailies > mid-size city newspapers > small-town newspapers; (3) the depth of coverage: feature stories > brief write-ups focused on the player > team profiles with brief discussion of player > passing mention in game coverage; and (4) the nature of the player's objective accomplishments (all-conference honors, records set, placement among leaders in significant statistical categories, high draft pick, etc.). In the case of Alex Light, he doesn't score too highly on any of these factors. Cbl62 (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to say the having playing time in an NFL game criteria is ridiculously low, but Light does not meet that so we have to delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Guye, I disagree strongly with you relisting this for discussion. There is a strong consensus across the board that this article is prime to be move to a draft page or user page. This is nothing that further discussion will change and I would prefer an admin review this and make a determination. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article unlikely to be kept so I'm okay with the above proposal in userfying to my subpage (User:Flooded with them hundreds/sandbox/6). Flooded with them hundreds 08:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and move to draft space per suggestions above. Cooked and fried. -The Gnome (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom for failing WP:NGRIDIRON. There's a ton of those "eggs" out there, most do not hatch. Ifnord (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ignoring the comments unrelated to the question of whether the articles should be deleted, there is a clear consensus to delete. The comments about "Third voice", if I understand them correctly, are an attempt to say that this article cannot be deleted because of copyright concerns about content which was copied to that article. However, since that content was almost immediately removed again, that attempt to prevent deletion can very easily be dealt with by removing the irrelevant edits from view. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Activeweave[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. All sources in the article are about the individual products by Activeweave, not the startup itself. The background section is basically unsourced advertising. Also, TechCrunch is unsuitable for demonstrating notability. Declined PROD. wumbolo ^^^ 08:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Simultaneous with this nom. some content has been copied to Third Voice an appropriate Template:copied template added. I regard a merge with Stickis is unlikely but should anyone feel either Stickis or Activeweave are kept I would suggest they consider bringing deprod and bring Stickis to this AfD and consider a merge. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As there is some possibility this is one of a number of articles where a non-admin closure might be regarded as controversial can I respectfully request an admin closure please. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:02, 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 01:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stickis

I am also nominating the following related page at this convenient point because it would have had an expired prod for reason 'Created as part of promotional spam cluster 10 years ago; no improvement in the intervening decade. No RS coverage. Dead product, no prospect of RS coverage.' apart from being declined for earlier contest PROD where it was claimed sufficient references for notability were achieved though I am minded these are insufficient and would not survive close scrutiny to my understanding. I also note the subject seems not to have WP:SUSTAINED coverage over a period of time. However I can appreciate it is possible that some may feel a merge with Activeweave might sway the balance, though I currently do not unless persuaded otherwise. I found nothing what I judged to be significant in a WP:BEFORE. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete both - both part of a promotional cluster from years ago, negligible RS coverage - David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 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 02:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given challenge at User_talk:Kpgjhpjm#Letting AfD's discussions run this was probably not the prudent of relists and should have been left to someone else. Deserves a WP:TROUT in my opinion. Can I requests admin's only deal with relists from this point as only they may appreciate the stickies. For avoidance of doubt despite what some alerting systems are saying Wumbolo had nominated Activeweave and I (Djm-leighpark) have nominated Stickis. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both Delete per lack of notability. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 10:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So you come given my request Can I requests admin's only deal with relists from this point does a non-admin relist? Has the discussion not been read by the relister? So AfD is cluttered with this for another week? One reason I am interested is I have implicitly given a commitment to assist to merge should that continue for another week. Due to the extended length of this discussion I now withdraw and commitment to support any merge from Stickis to Activeweave or vice versa should that be an outcome, and now may or may not assist in any other merge from this discussion. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third voice considerations means can surely plausibly only viably be delete+histmerge+delete, unless someone else is up for merging, redirect+content add, or a keeping, unless I be mistaken. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:25, 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 speedy keep. SK #1, withdrawn by nom with no delete votes. All votes for SK on procedural grounds. -- ferret (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bowsette[edit]

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

Why the heck does this have an article? Why the heck is it a GA? Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 00:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No deletion rationale put forth by the nom. -- ferret (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Longcat, Brian Peppers. Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 00:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - An "Other stuff doesn't exist" argument isn't valid. -- ferret (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am referring to 2 precedents that are both more than a decade old. Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 00:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which you’ve put zero effort into explaining how they apply here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Only argument posed is OTHERSTUFF[DOESN'T]EXIST, and meeting GA criteria is evidence that it meets notability and other criteria. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No policy-based argument for deletion provided, and WP:IDON'TLIKEIT isn't an argument for deletion. PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - no valid rationale given, tons of third party coverage exists, is in article already. Sergecross73 msg me 00:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Per above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting memes covered by MSM on slow news days has been done before: Longcat (AFD), Brian Peppers (DRV), and Filthy Frank (AFD, later overturned without consensus or going through DRV due to getting on a billboard chart, even though there are actually 2 versions of the billboard charts nowadays: one that counts YouTube views and one that only counts CD sales, ITunes downloads, etc.). Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 00:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You're still not providing any policy based rationales. That it has happened before (especially a decade ago) is not policy based. -- ferret (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:ROUTINE Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 00:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NEVENT doesn't apply here? -- ferret (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Memes qualify as news events, and WP:NWEB and WP:ROUTINE can sometimes overlap. Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 00:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Was there any significant coverage in Brian Peppers or Longcat? Because all I'm finding on a quick search through Google News are just brief mentions, nothing even examining it. However I can also point out All your base are belong to us and Keyboard cat both exist as articles, so arguing 'Routine' doesn't really fly here. Without seeing the articles in question, I'd reason it was probably more a case of WP:N.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per above. Just close this nomination already per WP:SNOW. 344917661X (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn - The "meme loophole" in the gap between NWEB and NEVENT needs to be patched. Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 01:00, 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.