Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 25 September 27 September >

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. Tone 07:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happstack[edit]

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

Article is entirely WP:OR based on primary sources. Could not find any books on Amazon on this topic. A few Happstack books show up on Google Scholar but they're all by the same author. One paper describes Happstack [1] but only extremely briefly. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article says its an app server, the Haskell main page says its a web framework. I thought it might be WP:TOOSOON but iat first glance at seems uncared for and abandoned (in 2012?). Probably obsoleted by an alternative Haskell web framework. At best I'd as soon create a brand new redirect such as Happstack(web application framework) and direct it at Haskell (programming language)#Web ... not sure if its worth that though. I open to someone changing my mind if someone brings something better to the table.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 22:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yesod (web framework)[edit]

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

This article is entirely original research and is textbook WP:NOTMANUAL. WP:NUKEANDPAVE applies here. Additionally, the topic seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT as the only independent, reliable, significant, secondary source I could find on this was [2]. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 22:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't even read my nomination. I said that that book was the only source I found. Can you please calm down? – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 03:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Widefox has edited this comment. It had previously criticized me for not finding the O'Reilly book. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 03:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Yes, I fixed my comment before anyone else commented as it was incorrect, which is allowed.) Did you do BEFORE?, and if you start deleting and blanking lots of Haskell articles in the same day, just when your attempt at deleting Haskell xmonad is failing, don't you think someone will notice a pattern? Widefox; talk 03:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. Did you read the nom? I said the only source I found was the book, which I found independently when I was checking for sources, since I didn't check the external links section. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 04:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So I shouldn't have struck WP:SKCRIT#3 as you've confirmed you didn't read the article. Unstruck. Widefox; talk 05:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC) struck WP:SKCRIT#3 to deescalate - still a Speedy Keep is OK, or Keep. Widefox; talk 10:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The O'Reilly book and the chapter in Seven Web Frameworks in Seven Weeks: Adventures in Better Web Apps, which compares and contrasts web frameworks, and the other sources mentioned above are enough to show that the topic has in depth reliable sourcing. The article itself is meticulously cited to mostly primary sources and could use some secondary sourcing and cleanup of excessive detail. But I don't see any problems that could not be fixed with ordinary editing. A notable topic and an article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems suggests a keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That's at least two sources that discuss this framework in detail. I apologize for not finding that second book and withdraw this nomination. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 22:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 07:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Sellam[edit]

Marc Sellam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • WP:N This article does not have or does not have enough quality secondary sources to prove the subject's notoriety.
  • WP:BIO This biography fails WP:BIO criteria

For information: this article has been deleted from the French-language article for this reason. EulerObama (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hiàn (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hiàn (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No consensus to delete, strong arguments were made in favor of keeping. This was somewhat the outcome of the previous AfDs as well. Tone 08:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of common misconceptions[edit]

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

Article is a list of trivia by definition; it has inconsistent and sometimes very poor sourcing. Despite being AfD'ed previously, sourcing has not improved mostly because the broad variety of subjects and mass-appeal nature of explicit sourcing rules out many academic and high-quality sources. Article is highly unlikely to reach a workable state at any point in the future, and well-sourced entries can be moved to the appropriate article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like many other problematic Wikipedia 'list' articles, this suffers greatly from having no clear criteria for inclusion. To my mind, if the criteria for inclusion aren't evident from the title, and instead have to be fought over repeatedly, one has to conclude that they are not only subjective (as deciding what exactly 'common' means for example clearly would be), but more generally subject to the whim of whoever currently wishes to make the most fuss over them. Which ultimately means that the contents of the article aren't decided by Wikipedia policy (e.g. on notability), but instead by popular vote. Which would seem to me to be contrary to the stated objectives of this project. I know that "it isn't encyclopaedic" is generally considered a poor argument at AFD, but in this case I have to suggest that an amorphous collection of random poorly-sourced trivia gathered together by people who can't agree what exactly it is they are compiling makes for poor encyclopaedic content. 86.149.219.138 (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. It's had well over a decade to correct the issues (check the first AfD and prepare to experience deja vu), and yet it's never done so. If 12+ years of editing can't fix it, it can't be fixed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep without prejudice against a future discussion. The article is fully protected right now and it is not reasonable to prevent keep !voters from attempting to improve it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it more reasonable to prevent the community from coming to a decision over what to do with an article just because a few people are edit-warring over it? I think not. It would seem to me to be a most inadvisable precedent to set. 86.149.219.138 (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: I'm only suggesting that this deletion discussion be put on hold until the protection expires. I have no objection to it reopening at that time. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that protection is due to expire in less than 24 hours [7] that would seem rather unnecessary. 86.149.219.138 (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It expires at 14:50, 28 September, or about 40 hours from now. That's almost 1/4 of the normal 7-day length of an AFD. This article has been around since 2003; a 40-hour wait isn't going to do much harm. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the article can be improved to avoid deletion, then deletion is not warranted even if no improvement happens (cf. Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state). Regards SoWhy 09:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, yes. In practice, people will !vote based on the current state. I've stuck my !vote anyway because the article is now unprotected. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a huge fan of this article as it's a magnet for POV and OR edits, but it passes WP:LISTN. There's tons of sources out there describing common misconceptions. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD was more controversial than I thought. A simple Google Scholar search [8] reveals plenty of sources that discuss common misconceptions. Given the quantity of academic sources, I'm quite sure there's even more non-academic sources. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 18:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The google scholar result is not impressive. It's mostly articles that use a "common misconceptions" title as a catchy introduction to an article by experts in topic X, providing solid correct information on topics within X, chosen based on the authors' subjective impression about what misconceptions in that field are common. Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that could be a reason to redefine the inclusion criteria rather than delete the article. Maybe we want to specify that the source must prove that they are common rather than just labeling the misconception as common. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 06:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In broad terms, what kind of criteria did you have in mind, FenixFeather? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 07:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@142.160.89.97: I didn't realize that the article already has pretty solid inclusion criteria. However, if Ccrrccrr doesn't like the fact that expert opinions on common misconceptions should be allowed, then that could be an amendment to the current inclusion criteria. Here's the current criteria just for reference:
  1. The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own.
  2. The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.
  3. The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.
  4. The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete.
– FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@John M Wolfson: Uhh, what does its quality of organization have to do with whether or not it qualifies as trivia? (Note that I'm not asking whether its quality of organization is relevant to it being kept or not.) 142.160.89.97 (talk) 07:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I misunderstood WP:TRIVIA to extend to articles and not just trivia sections within articles, which are as it states unorganized lists of miscellany. --John M Wolfson (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is an exceptional list article having unambiguous and rigorous criteria for inclusion, as described in the big tan box at the top of the talk page. It is actually pretty hard to get a new entry accepted. Each misconception has reliable sources that attest to the fact that it's a common misconception. Even the subject of common misconceptions has had books published about it, and the quality and sourcing in this list exceeds that of the books I've seen. Clearly meets WP:LISTN. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I lean keep but I don't find this statement credible. The big tan box actually says that there's no clear consensus about the criteria! Also, the use of reliable sources to attest that it's a common misconception is weak. Often an article will use that as a way to frame an explanation by an expert on the topic who has done no research to actually determine how common the misconception is. And the editors who are vetting that content (for the reliable source) are likely vetting only that the corrected story is correct, not vetting whether the misconception is in fact common. Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this is an exceptional list article having unambiguous and rigorous criteria for inclusion, as described in the big tan box at the top of the talk page. I would like to assume good faith here, Anachronist, but given that literally the first sentence of the tan box to which you're referring reads "A rigid consensus on inclusion criteria for this list has not been reached", it is self-evident that you are lying to us. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that there are unambiguous and rigorous criteria for inclusion. Nowhere did I address any lack of consensus. Don't lie about what others have written. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the criteria lack consensus, then there are no criteria. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contrary to nomination, inclusion criteria are not ambiguous. Rracecarr (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Seriously, this again? The article obviously has lots of good, well sourced information, and to suggest that it should be deleted simply because it's contentious is ridiculous. Furthermore, in my opinion, this article is particularly useful to the mission of Wikipedia, to spread knowledge. Benjamin (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The question isn't whether the content is true or verifiable. It is. The question is whether this list, as an article in one place on 191 or some other topic is encyclopedic. Wikipedia spreads knowledge about misconceptions by correcting the misonceptions in the articles. Has anyone identified these as the misconceptions most in need of correction? No, and they won't. It's just WP:LISTCRUFT, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Trivia, any information here can be put into the article with little or no disruption. Incredibly questionable citations as well. In short, it's a mess. I'd rather see it nuked and restarted than try to salvage a clearly broken page. --Tarage (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong/Speedy/SNOW keep The fact that the article has poor sourcing is basically irrelevant. If there were poor sourcing on Donald Trump or Life or book cover (as indeed there is) would you be advocating that page's deletion? Of course not. If there are respectable and reliable pieces of literature in existence on this very topic, which indeed there are, then why on Earth should this article not exist? The article is wholly encyclopaedic, not to mention very interesting. I have learnt much from it over the years. JZCL 01:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JZCL: Which of the speed keep criteria (WP:SKCRIT) does it meet? And on what basis would WP:SNOW be applicable? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW per my above points. Speedy because at the time of my writing this the article was fully protected, so editors could not improve problems addressed in the article. It doesn't specifically come any of those criteria. JZCL 21:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How hasn't it already failed the snowball test? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "common" misconceptions? Unless you can produce a public opinion poll for each and every entry to verify that qualifier, it just devolves down to WP:OR. A very strong WP:LISTCRITERIA may get it just over to "keep" but it would probably be ignored just the way the current one is. This WP:LISTCRUFT doesn't need to be centralized and its in a pretty useless format. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Mind pointing us to the part of WP:V that requires public opinion polls before we can include what multiple reliable sources say is common? Regards SoWhy 07:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "common" then its WP:V, lead, second paragraph, first sentence, there should be some reference to the source verifying that. If that does not exist then its an opinion of the source and should not be stated as a fact in Wikipedia's voice per WP:YESPOV. What actually happens with the entries is WP:OR - editor reads something in a Wikipedia and says "oh, I didn't know that" (googles it) "oh, there it is again, and again, oh... and their it is again...it must be a common misconception!!!"...does a quick A+B+C+D=E and adds it to the list. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they must be verified and with reliable sources. But when a reliable source or two or three says "this is a common misconception", WP:V does not require that they conducted a poll for them to be allowed to says so. The OR problem can easily be fixed be following the requirement that entries need sources to verify that this is a common misconception. Which is already part of the rules on the talk page. Regards SoWhy 14:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That still won't fly – would a source have to actually use the word "common misconception"? What if it used "myth"? What if it said "pervasive"? Two different authors, no matter how reliable, might have completely different notions of what "common" means. Otherwise reliable sources can very easily insert words like "common" as a hook on which to write about a topic, while offering absolutely no evidence that it actually is common. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument seems to be that because sources might report something as common that might not "truly" be common, we cannot include it, correct? But the point of V is that we should only report on what sources say is common, not choose whether this is true. If it helps, we can rename the list to List of misconceptions considered common or something like that (if one allows the WP:OSE argument here, see List of films considered the best, List of films considered the worst, List of video games considered the best etc. for examples of other "subjective" lists like that that are considered acceptable). We can also require that each entry features at least three different reliable sources claiming that something is a common misconception. Both are editing problems though, not notability problems. Regards SoWhy 15:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing ANI discussion People may wish to have a look at WP:ANI#Article_ownership_at_List_of_common_misconceptions before voting JZCL 01:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's false to say this list has not improved. Look at the diffs between the 2011 version of this, or 2009, or whichever old AfD you like, and it's obvious it has gotten better. Having poorly sourced information has never been grounds for deletion. Many articles had 10 unsourced facts last year, and 12 this year. A 20% increased in unsourced facts is not grounds for deletion. Things change. The prediction that it won't reach a "workable state" in the future has no arguments behind it. Why not? You could make the same argument about Wikipedia as a whole. What exactly is a "workable state", anyway? Good Article? Featured List? Or what? It's a nebulous criticism, unrelated to any valid criteria for deletion.

    If you can accept that for all the beautiful Featured Articles, Wikipedia also has hundreds of thousands of terrible articles, then why not accept that while this list might have some flawed entries, many are good? If you can't accept a list like this, then you can't accept Wikipedia itself. The premise of the list, that it only reflects consent on other articles that already has good consensus, is sound. In the end, policy says this: perfection is not required. There is no time limit. That fact that one individual editor becomes impatient sooner than another is to be expected. Not every editor can hang in there for the long haul. But this article can. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Oversimplification to the point of verging on OR. Every one of these items needs a fullr eferencedi scussion, and we have articles on most of them to do that. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an unmanageable double whammy of an article: a vague and overly inclusive criterion that promotes addition of all kinds of trivial nonsense, combined with a subject matter that is an absolute magnet for bad sourcing and OR. It's no wonder the article has been limping along in dire shape for years now. To achieve a state that WP needs not be ashamed of, it would require the kind of iron hand control that we just don't (can't) do here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, the nomination has not given any accepted reason for deletion. As FenixFeather points out, "common misconceptions" is a notable topic for a list, in fact, it's something, despite claims to the contrary, what people have always expected to find in an encyclopedia, something that is clear from the coverage this article has gathered (see links on the talk page). All those problems with consistency, sourcing or inclusion those arguing for deletion mentioned are WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems and can and should be fixed by editing. As Dennis Bratland correctly points out, the state of the article has actually improved and perfection is not required. If you disagree with certain entries, remove them (boldly or after discussion), but don't chuck out the notable, well-referenced stuff with it. Also, I find it deeply troubling that the nominator first started an ANI discussion about an editor's behavior on this list and then, when that editor was not immediately sanctioned, started this AFD instead of waiting for the ANI or talk page discussions to conclude. Regards SoWhy 07:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy: Which of the speed keep criteria (WP:SKCRIT) does this meet? And how does WP:NOPAGE not meet WP:DELREASON? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This meets SKCRIT #1b: " fails to advance any argument for deletion". All the arguments brought forth in the nomination are fixable by editing and the reasoning was merely that this has not yet happened. NOPAGE does not fit here because the list meets WP:LISTN as pointed out multiple times. Regards SoWhy 10:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy: You can argue that WP:NOPAGE oughtn't apply here, but why would WP:LISTN prevent its application? And when you say it "meets" WP:LISTN, I haven't the faintest idea as to what that means given that WP:LISTN provides no criteria per se.
Regarding WP:SKCRIT, the full text of the first criterion is "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection—perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging—and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected [emphasis in original]." Are you suggesting that no one has recommended that the page be deleted or redirected? Bear in mind that the latter part of the criterion you're citing doesn't require that the rationales for such recommendations meet WP:DELREASON. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are stringent criteria for inclusion and there is a rigorous editorial process. By its nature this list is contentious and open-ended, but I think it is a worthwhile project.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep A notable topic! The entire article should not be deleted just because of a content issue. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable topic, stringent inclusion criteria, and mostly well sourced. (Not that bad sourcing is a valid argument for deletion.) The criteria that the misconception is mentioned in the main article means that it's not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Sjö (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. All we have here is a bunch of opinions - in fact the article almost looks like "The very best of Did you know?" There's no possible way this could be considered a definitive and encyclopedic list, as so much of what is considered a "common misconception" is down to the reader. I think it's a "common misconception" that Leicester Square is pronounced "Lie - ches - ter Square" (and indeed, that article says that and cites a source saying it; for homework consider Toaster and Chizzick), but it's not listed here and I can't see much appetite for it turning up here either. WP:LISTN is not met, as there are no traditional encyclopedias or general purpose sources that talk about a list of common misconceptions (as opposed to individual ones) as a significant topic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LISTN says nothing about traditional encyclopedias or general purpose sources, it says "independent reliable sources". That criteria is met. See the sources, external links and further reading in the article that discuss common misconceptions as a group.Sjö (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LISTN also only requires that a set of topics "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". There are plenty of sources that list misconceptions as a group rather than individually (e.g. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] etc. pp.). It's not our job to decide whether RS should do that, just that they do. I mentioned List of films considered the best above as an example of a list that has routinely been found encyclopedic despite clearly being subjective. OSE aside, the same reasoning applies: If source 1 says "A, B, C and D are common misconceptions" and source 2 says "E, F, G, H and A" are common misconceptions, we can include A to H in a list and point to the sources that list them together without having to have a source that lists all of them together. Regards SoWhy 16:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above discussion. It's a common misconception that this interesting page should be deleted. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the 12 years since this article was first brought to AfD for the exact same reasons, nothing has changed. Normally, I wouldn't think that the problems I described were a rationale for deletion. But 12 years?? That's a lot of time for us to fix it, and we're not doing that. Instead, we have individual editors all trying to fix it, while fighting each other. We have irrational inclusion criteria (seriously; a criteria that requires content be in a different article first is ridiculous) being written up and posted to the edit notice, we have editors mass-reverting every addition, we have nothing but battles on the talk page. It's a hot mess, with no signs of getting better.
At what point to those !voting to keep this article plan to actually help by replacing bad sources with good, trimming bad entries and adding good ones? Because I don't see that happening at the article. Instead, I see occasional editors showing up to "fix" it and only making things worse, or else editors just completely ignoring it. So if editors here don't want to get in the mud of fixing this crap, then please don't !vote "keep" just on principles. Principles are good things to have, but they don't actually do any work on their own. If we can delete and rebuild this article, we might have a chance to make it worthwhile, but if we just keep pretending that just because it could be fixed that it will be fixed, we're just damaging this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you are basically saying it's too much of a hassle to have this page even if it is encyclopedic? How is there anything that can be achieved by deleting and recreating that cannot be achieved by editing without prior deletion? Plus, if you start citing time as a reason for deletion, when does it stop? After 10 years with no improvement? 5 years? 1 year? Wikipedia is a work in progress and will always be. And this includes having lists that might never be "perfect". That does not mean they should not exist. Regards SoWhy 14:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you are basically saying it's too much of a hassle to have this page even if it is encyclopedic? No, I'm saying that no-one is taking on the hassle to make this non-encyclopedic article actually encyclopedic. I'm pointing out that in 12 years, we've yet to deal with the hassle of this article. Also, I never suggested anything needed to be "perfect", nor can any reasonable person interpret what I said as meaning that, so please stop mischaracterizing what I said. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the maintenance hassle (editors who know how Wikipedia works battle at its talk page and more recently at WP:ANI)... —PaleoNeonate – 13:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:INDISCRIMINATE says "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". This is the case here. So this is actually a keep-argument. Regards SoWhy 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a very interesting and insightful article that is fun to read. Can't see anything wrong with it. In fact, it's one of my favorite articles. 🔥flame🔥talk 14:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, there's a strict inclusion criteria; I tried to edit it, and besides, it's highly protected. 🔥flame🔥talk 14:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a pure WP:ILIKEIT vote, not a valid justification to keep. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You may have missed LFlamel's "strict inclusion criteria" and "protected" language, both valid justifications and both good reasons to favor a "Keep" conclusion. So the comments are a long way from a simple "ILIKEIT". Randy Kryn (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic of misperceptions ("factual beliefs that are false or contradict the best available evidence in the public domain") is the subject of a small but interesting body of scholarship, reviewed on pp. 2-3 of this 2017 paper, so it passes WP:LISTN. It also has reasonably clear selection criteria, so it satisfies WP:SALAT. Therefore the list should be kept, I(DONT)LIKEIT arguments notwithstanding. FourViolas (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Wikipedia:Listcruft and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE; incomplete and trivial. Kierzek (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If nothing else, there's no way to quantify what qualifies a misconception as being "common". Indeed, while the entries themselves are fairly well-sourced in terms of the basic facts, I checked a few at random, and none offered any evidence that these were common misconceptions. There's often no way to verify whether something here is a common misconception, or whether it's a common misconception that it's a common misconception. We could simply rename to "List of misconceptions", but then what's too trivial to include or too important to omit? Between the insurmountable sourcing issues and the vague inclusion criteria, this list should be axed. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point: It's an extremely common misconception that an argument from authority is always a fallacy (it's not; hence why it's not called "fallacy of authority"). Good luck finding a source that say this, though. That's the problem with common misconceptions: they're so common nobody calls them out. Finding a source for one is like trying to find a source for the claim that water is wet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing that proves that any of these are actually common misconceptions, although it would be very difficult to prove. A lot of these are local American entries which would not be common in a world or encyclopedia sense. MilborneOne (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Utter trash fire of an article, not encyclopedic in the least bit.--WaltCip (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article has survived three AfD noms before this one. This is an insightful article, refs looks ok. I see that most of those who !votes Delete gives raitonales like Utter trash and a bunch of opinions etc. That is POV and not guideline based. per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that most of those who !votes Delete gives raitonales like Utter trash and a bunch of opinions etc. That is POV and not guideline based. per WP:GNG. You sure don't see that in this AfD. The Delete !votes for the most part give WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:OR and WP:LISTCRUFT based arguments, but also give practical arguments, like my nom. You know what I do see here? WP:LASTTIME, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:MUSTBESOURCES, WP:INTERESTING, WP:ADDSVALUE. Only I see them in the keep !votes. Funny how they're all on the same page, isn't it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of sourcing is available; inclusion criteria is well-defined (INDISCRIMINATE doesn't apply). Enterprisey (talk!) 17:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article seems to be more of a bar trivia article than a encyclopedic article. The name itself is concerning as it's subjective. —JJBers 18:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The name can easily be changed. Regards SoWhy 18:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- (per [14]) There is plenty of WP:RS to make the numerous individual topics within the overall topic notable. As I see it, Wikiipedia is to inform, and this list does just that. Is it a typical encyclopedia entry? No. Is it a typical LIST? Yes. If anything in the list is not properly documented in WP:SECONDARY sources, sure get rid of that. But otherwise, I see absolutely no problem with this potporri of random facts. It's certainly far more useful than this list of Toronto Skyscrapers that seems to me mostly just a bunch of WP:PROMO:
--David Tornheim (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC) [revised 18:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)][reply]
@David Tornheim: In what world is that a list? It's a navbox, existing solely for the purpose of navigation. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a summary article. References are not an issue as each fact is taken from another Wikipedia article. See the "official" criteria for inclusion on the talk page (and which also appears when you edit the article): "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." If the associated article doesn't also include the misconception with references, then its associated entry in this list should be removed. Besides which, there are a ton of references: the list contains some 476 references itself, 10 items under "Further reading", and a host of editors hawkishly protecting the article from misinformation. If this article is deleted for "very poor sourcing" then you might as well delete 98% of Wikipedia. For those who find "common" to be too subjective, it's no more or less subjective than "notability", the primary test to decide whether a topic warrants its own article on Wikipedia, so it's hardly an issue. You could even remove the word "common" from the article title and it would still be implied. —Pengo 00:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to Pengo: The editor edit warring over keeping entries in the article (the same one that nominated this article for AfD, go figure) and at least two others at Talk:List of common misconceptions are interpreting "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources" as "there's a mention of people not knowing some fact" and claim it does not mean that the "common misconception" its self has to be stated in the linked article (actually they don't think there should be any article linked at all re: "(seriously; a criteria that requires content be in a different article first is ridiculous)"). Up for taking the ambiguity out of that criteria? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, he finds it too difficult to get a demographic misconception listed so he nominates the whole article for deletion. Reeks of a bad faith nomination merely to make a point.
    By the way, if demographic / statistical misconceptions were listed, basically every single statistic would need to be listed, e.g. see this TED talk. Although there's no perfect rule for what should or shouldn't be included, over time there's a fairly strong consensus of what counts as common, notable, and well sourced enough for a sensible list, so I don't think there's a need for completely unambiguous criteria (much in the same way "notable" is a totally subjective and ambiguous but remains a cornerstone of Wikipedia). Regardless, this nomination is ridiculous. —Pengo 04:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This whole back and forth is 100% bullshit, and I'm not going to bother correcting any single part of it. Bryn: get the fuck over it. I reported you at ANI because of your behavior, and then I went this route because it fixes the article without having to deal with the bullshit that popped up at ANI. I promise you that if I actually went out and notified everyone who's already accused you of bad behavior at that article (which is not canvassing, BTW) and refocused on the ANI, you would find that it quickly turns against you. Hell, there's already at least two other comments on your behavior there. Seriously, grow the fuck up and stop going around whining about everything, or it's going to blow up in your face. I'm literally making an effort to work with you here, and your reaction is to throw a hissy fit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will skip responding to MPants since its really getting to be WP:DNFTT. Thanks Pengo, I noticed off the bat that it was a summary List article (and edited it as so) and you can't blame a list just because it indexes other Wikipedia articles that have a certain attribute (such as have a referenced statement about a "common misconception"), that's the bailiwick of Lists. The problem is human nature and the tendency of some Wikipedia editors to think this is the place to do OR and come up with your own facts. It kinda makes me think we should skew one point towards the "delete side" to compensate for that... but there is probably not a guideline on that :/ . Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even know what a troll is? I know you don't know what "name-calling" means, already. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Poor sourcing is not a reason to delete a list article on a subject that has been covered in many sources. I'm not sure what changed since last time. Oren0 (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a common misconception that this page won't end up being one of the most interesting RM discussions in recent history. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Poor sourcing is not a reason to Delete a page- I feel like we're skipping a few steps, going from Wrenches to just sending in a Apcache and bombing it. Plus the article has surived mutliple AFDs in the past. Geartooth Friendship is Magic! 05:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article has survived three AfD noms before this one. This is an insightful article, refs looks good. ccaldarella (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Shouldn't it be "List of common misPERceptions"? Someone who creates an idea conceives it, and someone who interprets that idea perceives it. Everything in this list is an error by the perceiver. Just sayin'. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Topic is clearly notable and AFD is not cleanup. It's also somewhat disingenuous to complain about poor quality and simultaneously prevent users from improving it. Smartyllama (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's also somewhat disingenuous to complain about poor quality and simultaneously prevent users from improving it. I'm sure you think this was about me, but you've actually stolen the words right out of my mouth. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that page protection on the article has expired. I would encourage users !voting to keep to participate in a discussion ongoing at the talk page about the inclusion criteria, which could result in the addressing of the problems with the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any problems that day-to-day editing couldn't fix. Collections of misconceptions about particular topics (e.g., evolution) are discussed together in reliable sources (e.g., the TalkOrigins FAQ and its kin), so the sections of this list each pass WP:LISTN. XOR'easter (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to OP MPants at work: You say repeatedly above that there are numerous areas that need work. Perhaps, can you give a list at the talk page of the specific sections that you think are a problem and what is wrong with each? I'm willing to take a look. I just randomly perused at one section, saw some good stuff and that was enough to satisfy for my vote above. Perhaps you can convince me that there are so many areas with intractable problems compared to those with good material that deleting is the solution. I dare not look at Argument from Authority, which we both know has had intractable problems at the article page. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: See the article talk page; I've already started a discussion about the criteria, which is one of the biggest problems. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MPants at work: I looked at Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#Criteria, which is a discussion of changing inclusion criteria. I have not looked into what are the current or proposed changes to the criteria--that is another matter, and there will be room for disagreement because of the uniqueness of how this article treats the subject. What I am asking you instead is for specific examples of sections (or sentences) that you see that are in the article that you think are a problem and/or how the existence of this article has somehow made the problem with those sections worse than it would be if those same sections were in a standalone article on the subject (or a section of a bigger article). I haven't seen evidence of multiple problems like that that are exacerbated by the existence of this article yet. But I might change my vote if I did. You seem to assert that there are multiple examples. I will trust you that Argument of Authority is no better here than at the article page, but I need to see more examples. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the time right now, or in the immediate future to go through and evaluate all the sources again. I've done it once before and found the sources on average to be quite weak though the content itself seems to be easily sourceable, I've also made some points in the nom as well as in other comments here about practical problems that don't have to do with sources, but which reflect on the fundamental nature of this article. If you look at the discussion I pointed you to, you should be able to see how the outcome of that discussion will affect anyone examining the sourcing in this article, so going through it now with an eye to the sources would be somewhat pointless. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'll try to spend some time with your entry on criteria. I've done it once before and found the sources on average to be quite weak though the content itself seems to be easily sourceable... That to me is a strong reason to me to keep. I would only vote to delete if I felt it contained misinformation or non-notable and unsource-able material.
That said, I do understand that the criteria for inclusion might be more editorial judgment on our part than on the basis of secondary sources. I don't actually have a big problem with that any more than the judgments about our decision on what to cover in "Today in the news", list of Philosophers, important dates, etc. On the other hand, for our Landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases article, I do think we have a problem with how those are chosen and have stated so. I do think those should be chosen by reliable sources and not editors. I'm guessing you are making that argument here.
I could see an argument for the a requirement that there is some evidence (in at least one reliable source) that the asserted misconception is "commonly held". Proving that a particular belief is wrong and what is correct might be easy, but perhaps is not enough. But proving it is a "common" misconception is a bit tricky, because then we have to ask what is meant "common"? If 10% of people believe it, is that common? What if only 1% of people believe it, but make serious mistakes because their strongly held mistaken belief? If the RS says "some people mistakenly believe X", would it qualify? If that's what this is about, I might be in agreement about adjusting the requirements to show at least some evidence that the RS says that some people are confused, but not about deleting the article--unless I saw flagrant violation of reasonable rules. Still, I'm staying with my keep vote until I see there is a clear problem. Will look at your criteria section another time. Thanks for discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MPants at work: After writing the above, I looked at your criteria discussion as promised, which did indeed have to do with what is meant by "common". Seems the main thing you wanted to require is that an "expert" must assert the misconception. Although I am not presently in agreement, I can see an argument for that. In the meantime, without strong evidence of any particular problems in the article, I'm staying with keep. If you or anyone else wants to hat this discussion, it's fine by me. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: I'm not trying to convince you to change your !vote. Whether the article is deleted or improved doesn't matter to me. What happened was that I started an ANI thread about an editor using some of the poorest logic I've seen come from any experienced editor to justify edit warring to keep any new entry from being added to that article. When I did so, the response from the usuals at ANI was to exclaim about how low-quality the article was, and several of them opined it should be deleted. With that discussion absolutely derailing almost any discussion of the editing behavior, I decided to refocus on fixing the article, however necessary. So I filed this, to see how the dice fell, since I was unable to edit the article myself at the time. I later (the next day) started a discussion about the inclusion criteria. I'm wide open to participation there, if you would care to do so. So far, the quality of that discussion has not been much better, with one editor opining that defining a simple, binary criteria by which we judge something to be "common" or not would somehow increase arguments about whether an entry was a "common" misconception or not, and the editor I initially filed the ANI against opining that changing the existing criteria would somehow permit WP:OR at the article, an assertion so insanely illogical that I can only assume it's due to a desperate attempt to rebut anything I say. So if you would like to continue this discussion, I would be happy to do so there. But since, as I said, I don't have any particular desire to push this to a "delete" close, I don't think this is the proper venue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MjolnirPants: Illogic on Wikipedia?!? [link redacted "Holy haberdashery, Batman!"] Say it isn't so! --David Tornheim (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AFD is not cleanup. Article ownership and sourcing issues can be dealt with elsewhere. shoy (reactions) 19:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies LISTN. NOT is wholly inapplicable. Any other problems would appear to be SOFIXIT. The essay LISTCRUFT is WP:CRUFTCRUFT and has no value. In view of the scope of this list, SPINOUT of daughter lists is probably appropriate. For example, List of common misconceptions in mathematics is likely feasible: [15]. James500 (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has been argued that it does not meet the threshold of WP:Notability. Per WP:LISTN, One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Several sources have been linked above demonstrating that this is the case for the topic of common misconceptions; here is another for good measure. It has also been argued that there aren't clear and well-defined WP:LISTCRITERIA and that the list is hence WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I don't personally agree that this is the case, and even if I did that's not a reason to delete the page without at least making an attempt to fix the criteria first (since the topic is notable – if the topic itself were not notable, changing the inclusion criteria to redefine the scope to something that is notable I would consider a much more dubious proposition, and I might favour deletion in such a case). It has further been argued that the sourcing is poor, that certain entries don't belong, that some entries that should be on the list are missing, and that the inclusion criteria are insufficiently enforced; these are all WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems that can (and should) be solved by regular editing, not reasons to delete the page outright. Considering I don't see any reasons for deletion that I think hold water, I am of the opinion that the page should be kept. I would however not be opposed to splitting the page into subarticles. TompaDompa (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The article clearly and easily meets WP:GNG. And as Shoy points out, AFD is not cleanup. Shame on the OP for wasting the community's time with this frivolous AfD. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the article having been nommed for deletion four times over 12 years (and at least once before that) with the same exact problems being cited each and every time, any editor claiming "shame on the OP" really looks like someone who should get off their ass and help fix the damned thing instead of engaging in ignorant recrimination here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's an ad homenium criticism of an editor's !vote, and a violation of the policy WP:NOTMANDATORY. WP:TIND. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an ad hominem, I didn't say anything about their !vote, and I haven't violated any fucking policy. Jesus Christ, do you know what anything you said even means? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "nobody can say X unless they do Y", you're saying an opinion's validity is dependent on who is saying it. You're saying only editors who have worked to improve the list are allowed to criticize the WP:POINTy nature of this AfD. The AfD is either WP:POINTy, or it isn't, and anyone can argue that it is or isn't without every having worked on improving List of common misconceptions. When you start saying, "Editors who want to hold this or that opinion (keep the list, this AfD is POINTy, etc) are obligated to go edit the list", you're saying they have to go do volunteer work. Wikipedia is always voluntary. Nobody is obligated to do anything.

If this AfD is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, anyone can argue that it is regardless of what articles they have or haven't ever worked on. Ad homenium arguments are fallacious. Also, stop bludgeoning. There's plenty of other editors who can represent the significant point of view here. You're not the only one who wants to see this list deleted, so you're not the only one who has to refute every !vote. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, except I didn't say any of that shit you just claimed I did. And even if I did say that, that's still not what an ad hominem is. We have an article about the subject, you should probably read it before you go wash the taste of foot out of your mouth. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Best of luck to you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is an extremely useful article for those who have less background knowledge and are wanting to question what they consider to be true, and find places they have made assumptions of truth where really there should be questioning. It is all the the quest for knowledge. This article has a lot of value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EngineeringBabe (talk • contribs) 20:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do sympathise with anybody who feels that this article is more trouble than it is worth but it does cover a genuine topic. I feel that better inclusion criteria could help keep the list under control. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOPAGE, 86.149.219.138, and the nominator. Regarding those who argue that the list merely needs more stringent inclusion criteria, I cannot conceive of what any set of adequate criteria could look like that wouldn't pose a huge {{globalize}} issue. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Globalisation is something that the criteria will need to address. At the moment it is far too focused on the English speaking west. I don't see why it can't be done though. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What might such criteria look like? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of something along the lines of "Entries should not be restricted to small geographic areas. Generally, only misconceptions referenced as being common across multiple countries are eligible for inclusion. Misconceptions which are only common in a single country, with any believers elsewhere consisting mainly of its expatriates, are generally not eligible. Misconceptions common in only one country may be eligible for large countries with high populations but such exceptions must be referenced as very common throughout that country. Editors of the English Wikipedia should take care not to give undue weight to the misconceptions common in English speaking countries. Examples: Misconceptions common across the English, French or Spanish speaking world are equally eligible. Misconceptions common across West Africa, South Asia, North America or Eastern Europe are equally eligible. Misconceptions specific to large individual countries such as China, Russia or the USA are eligible only if very common throughout the whole country but generally are not. Misconceptions specific to smaller countries or to specific regions of large countries are not eligible. (This means that misconceptions common in only a few states of the USA are not eligible.) This may mean that many interesting and/or amusing candidate entries are excluded. This is intentional. It is necessary to avoid trivial and excessive entries." I'm sure that that is far from perfect. It might be that other people have better ideas for a starting point. I just wanted to show that it can be done. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to elaborate on how WP:NOPAGE applies here, in your opinion? TompaDompa (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NOPAGE's point is that a standalone page may not be the best way to present something. In this (unusual) case, "common misconceptions" are not best presented by gathering all this minutiae together into a worthless slagheap, but presenting the correct information wherever it naturally belongs throughout other articles. Honestly, you can't dip in anywhere in this page without finding strained triviality. Here's one:
Benjamin Franklin did not propose that the wild turkey be used as the symbol for the United States instead of the bald eagle. While he did serve on a commission that tried to design a seal after the Declaration of Independence, his proposal was an image of Moses. His objections to the eagle as a national symbol and preference for the turkey were stated in a 1784 letter to his daughter in response to the Society of the Cincinnati's use of the former; he never expressed that sentiment publicly.
Shocking! "Franklin did not propose that the wild turkey be used as the symbol for the United States". No, no. His "preference for the turkey were stated in a 1784 letter to his daughter...; he never expressed that sentiment publicly." So you see, private versus public. That's a really important distinction. You know what this page is? Ripley's Believe It or Not!. It's for twelve-year-olds who think interrupting people to tell them that Big Ben is a bell, not a clock, makes them look like a smart grown up. (I'm taking bets on how long before someone adds that to the page.) EEng 11:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Big Ben may have been there in the past although I don't feel like trawling the history to check. I'm not against it being included but I certainly don't feel the need to add it myself. It is a misconception and it is common, even in the UK. The turkey/eagle thing is not one I had heard of anywhere else. Probably it is of little interest outside of the USA. If it is a truly common misconception in the USA then maybe it is worth including. I think the annoying 12 year old issue only comes into play when coverage of these less than earth-shattering misconceptions is overdone. What we want in each case is just one sentence to set them up and one sentence and a link to knock them down.
Sure, the article can be read by kids in a "believe it or not" way. So long as that is not its only purpose then that is OK. If it encourages kids to read an encyclopaedia then surely that is no bad thing. It wouldn't be the only article that can be read out of context for pure entertainment. My personal favourite is List of fictional works in Gargantua and Pantagruel, which is what actually persuaded me to read Rabelais. Anybody who says anything against that will have two very angry, and very drunk, giants to contend with. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSINTERESTING may not be a reason to keep, but it's certainly not a reason to delete either. If that were the only argument to keep, sure, but it's not. And for what it's worth, I heard the turkey myth presented as fact when I was in elementary school. And it often makes its rounds in Facebook memes around Thanksgiving. Smartyllama (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the point: it's not a myth. He apparently really did write his daughter that he thought the turkey might be a good idea. Whether he formally "proposed" it, or "expressed that sentiment publicly" has little to do with it -- thinkers of the time primarily expressed themselves in letters. It's a great example of the kind of half-baked semi-educated stuff this page is full of. EEng 13:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. You are convincing me that that particular entry is not up to standard and I have no problem with other similarly poor entries being removed. I'm not seeing how this invalidates the whole article though, unless you feel that there would be nothing left? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it seems we don't have an essay called WP:CRAPMAGNET. EEng 13:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is the need to {{globalize}} a page a reason for deletion? It's a WP:SURMOUNTABLE issue. I'm excited at the prospect of editors from non-Western, non-English speaking cultures adding their common misconceptions. That some editors lack the imagination to see how future editors will work this out is not evidence that it can't be done. Fear of how long it might take, or how many editors might have to work to achieve it is not evidence it can't be done. If it were achieved, would the list grow too long? Probably. So what? That's what splitting is for. And it is generally agreed that the current version is too wordy and with tighter writing the whole thing could be much shorter and contain more entries. Again, surmountable.

Most of this amounts to FUD, WP:BEANS and hand wringing about hypothetical future problems which we can solve when they arise.

We keep circling back to one simple thing: this list is a large endeavor, broad in scope, dependent on many, many other Wikipedia articles, requiring many diverse and skilled editors, and it will take years if not decades to reach perfection, if ever. So what? Arbitrary deadlines, impatience, and lack of imagination. Wikipedia itself was widely panned and scorned by doubters who similarly lacked the imagination to see how such a thing could ever work. Turns out, it's possible, in time, and Wikipedia as a whole's lack of perfection is not a fatal flaw. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! Well said. I must admit, to my own happiness at finding such a page, that I did not know this page existed until a couple of days ago, 28 September. Until then I was unaware, wandering the halls of Wikipedia without going up this avenue. I haven't read much of the page, and have just done a couple of edits, but am enjoying the page itself and this discussion. Big Ben isn't the clock? Who would have known. I'll keep the article in mind, and do some polishing editing from time to time, and want to add in somewhere about catnip, if it's not in there already (that the effects of catnip do not work on one out of three cats, but two substitutes exist). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think EEng's reply does a good job of addressing the applicability of WP:NOPAGE. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Undefinable. Vague. Trivia. And the NOPAGE argument made immediately above is a powerful one. EEng 05:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It satisfies WP:GNG and WP:LISTN (and also, while pageviews aren't a valid argument, this is one of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia...). And, AfD is NOT CLEANUP. If the page needs to be cleaned-up, then make it happen. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yet again. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For DanielRigal FenixFeather Anachronist Rracecarr Dennis Bratland SoWhy Jack Upland Sjö FourViolas Enterprisey Pengo Smartyllama and other editors who think cleanup would solve the problem and seem to support a stringent inclusion criteria. The problem is every entry is someones pet so they are almost impossible to remove once added. Hence a piece of trivia that basically says "Its a "common misconception" that a housing project in St. Louis, Missouri won an architecture prize when it was actually another housing project in St. Louis, Missouri that won it" gets push back. As for "better inclusion criteria (to) help keep the list under control" and avoid INDISCRIMINATE - the current move is to weaken the criteria to the point of allowing every piece of trivia to be added. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if we count up how many entries were permanently removed in the last 12 months alone, would that change your mind? And the year before that? I can tell you I myself added the entry going with out a bra won't make your boobs sag and it's gone now. C'est la vie. What number would convince you?

      Even if it were the case that in recent times a cabal of editors had stonewalled and prevented removing anything from the article, that is a separate problem (i.e. surmountable, even if you personally have become discouraged at not getting your way) which can be resolved in other venues, covered by dispute resolution. It's not grounds for deletion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, that is absolutely not the case. Brynn has removed a large number of entries, with very little pushback. He didn't experience any real conflict until he started lying about what sources said and making ridiculous claims (including the startlingly illogical claim that something isn't a "common misconception" unless everyone, everywhere believes it) in order to prevent other editors from adding well-sourced content to the article. Furthermore, his claim about the "current move" is completely hysterical, as you can see by actually following that link. I suggest you not bother to engage Bryn, as they have demonstrated a complete unwillingness to engage with anything resembling reason at the page. It's his way or the highway. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Here's the diff for the last year. The following entries were in the list a year ago, but no longer:
  1. A standard cup of brewed coffee has more caffeine than a single shot of espresso.
  2. Placing metal inside a microwave oven does not damage the oven's electronics.
  3. "Golf" did not originate as an acronym of "Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden".
  4. Meteorites are not necessarily hot when they reach the Earth's surface.
  5. The Sun's color is white
  6. Guglielmo Marconi did not invent the radio, but only modernized it for public broadcasting and communication.
The following were entries that were added some time in the last 12 months, but are now gone:
  1. Whether, or how frequently, a woman wears a bra is not a factor in the likelihood of developing ptosis, or sagging breasts
  2. While the Australian referendum, 1967 was a crucial step blah blah blah blah
  3. The video game crash of 1983 was not solely caused because of bad games.
  4. The term "Polish death camp" is contradictory to historical facts and grossly unfair to Poland as a victim of Germany.
  5. The popular ideals of dinosaurs have many misconceptions, reinforced by films, books, comics, television shows, and even theme parks.
  6. It is unknown whether pi is a normal number
  7. By modern convention, one is not a prime number
  8. The complex numbers, which contain imaginary numbers, are defined equally as rigorously as real numbers using mathematical axioms
  9. Fractals are not necessarily self-similar
  10. It is often more convenient to describe a rotating system by using a rotating frame--the calculations are simpler, and descriptions more intuitive
  11. Though the exact cause of homosexuality is unknown, it is believed to be biological as it does not only manifest in humans. See homosexuality in animals.
  12. Contemporary studies(e.g. kinsey report) on human sexuality have shown that sexual interest exists on a continuum of frequency of interest rather than being binary
  13. The US home mortgage interest deduction was not created by Congress to encourage home ownership
  14. Most artificially fruit-flavored food products use the same formulas, regardless of the fruit flavors advertised.
  15. The average serial killer does not have a mental illness by a legal definition, nor are they highly intelligent, nor are all or most serial killers Caucasian males.
  16. Another misconception holds that chocolate makes a woman's period milder or less painful. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Bratland Wow. Those all got deleted? Nearly all sound like "common misconceptions" worthy of staying in the article. I'll bet an RfC on some of them could have saved a few. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was thinking the same thing. With a little work many of them could be kept. It’s compelling evidence that this list has not been indiscriminate, and clearly we have generally upheld a high standard. There’s no truth to these dismissals calling the list trivia or cruft or anyone’s pet factoid collection. It deserves some respect. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
THat looks about right. If you dig through, you'll see one editor responsible for the vast majority (if not the totality) of the removals. This all started when I started an ANI thread about Bryn's ownership of the page, and the response wasn't to discuss the behavior, but for several editors to clamor for the article's deletion. Myself, I don't really care whether the article is deleted, or whether this AfD merely results in more eyes on it, so that it can be sorted out. If Bryn can be "shouted down" at the article, that's just as good as having them sanctioned. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
until he started lying - It should be noted Pants bogus ANI went no where and they actually questioned Pants behavior, so he started calling those editors "lairs". And he seems to have just admitted to starting a bogus AfD. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes. Let the hate flow through you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really a problem unique to this article. It's much easier to add than remove content everywhere on Wikipedia. People will be unhappy any time you delete their pet misconception entry, article, article section, etc. That's a fact of life and not a reason to delete this article. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 03:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you reading every word above, or only every fourth or fifth word? Because you completely missed where I pointed out that I only opened this because people were calling for it at ANI. Please stop arguing with stuff nobody has said. Also...
It's much easier to add than remove content everywhere on Wikipedia. Wanna bet? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, please. I was replying to Bryn's assertion that this article is bogged down by other editors. I didn't indent over enough. Also, if you only made this AFD to make a point, and not because you actually want this article deleted, then that sounds a little problematic. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 18:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I sound a little too prickly. Having an editor (not you) do nothing except cast aspersions on me and go to ridiculous lengths to disagree with anything I say for several days in a row can have that effect, sometimes.
And as I said, I AfD'd it because other editors opined at ANI that the article was more problematic than Bryn's behavior in it, and should be deleted. It wasn't "my idea" per se, though I'd have been okay with it getting deleted. It's clear now that it won't be deleted (and that doesn't actually bother me even a little), but there were enough people !voting to delete that it's clear that the article needs serious work. If you wouldn't mind adding your thoughts at article talk (in the subsection "Summary thus far", specifically), that would be immensely useful. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: never-ending dispute between two editors
FYI. I looked at the "bogus ANI" which was closed without consensus that seems to be part of the reason for this AfD.  What I see there, as here, as at the article is two editors locked in what appears a never-ending dispute, accusing, alleging, calling names, etc.  My guess is that other editors--like me--have limited patience to read the lengthy back-and-forth, where there is some merit to what each is saying and some questionable argumentation tactics by each.  I'm sure each sincerely believes they could make the article better, if only they would get their way.
It's clear neither will convince the other, but because there is little room for anyone else to talk, the discussion is dominated with just two editors arguing back and forth ad nauseum. I'm confident that's why the AN/I produced no finding of fault.
To solve such logjams, it would help to invite other editors to a quantifiable dispute, and make sure to break disputes down into bite-sized questions.  (This AfD will at least answer the concrete question: Is this article worth saving?) Some positions are argued as being more black-and-white than they actually are, and other less-invested editors might be able to find middle ground that would get wider support than the status quo situation. Important is asking other editors questions that don't make them feel they need to read the lengthy back-and-forth in order to make an intelligent and informed answer.  I have a feeling I'm not alone. I believe Smartyllama will back me up (see [16]).
At this point, I'm far less interested in holding either accountable for behavioral indiscretions such as name-calling (which I see on both sides) and instead focusing on this question: What can be done to improve the article? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC) [revised 18:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)][reply]
P.S. If you look immediately below, you will see what I am talking about. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well first, you absolutely don't see any name calling coming from me. I'm not going to go any further into that beyond saying that the AfD was an idea that would provide a way forward that didn't involve perpetuating a dispute with Bryn. But of course, it takes two to drop it; as long as Bryn continues to vent his spleen about getting reported to ANI, it'll never truly die down. As for focusing on the details: that's what I'm doing at article talk. The criteria are one such detail. Once that's sorted out, we can take a fresh look at the entries, both deleted and existing to see what belongs and what doesn't. After that, I plan to start a discussion on format, as it's my opinion that we should be able to get each entry down to 1-2 sentences. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well first, you absolutely don't see any name calling coming from me. Well, this isn't an ANI and we are getting well of topic. Lets just say Pants is less than truthful, I have never seen an editor more likely to comment on the contributor instead of the content and his violating WP:NPA and WP:TPG has been noticed before. He not only does this with me[17][18][19], he has a go at other people[20][21][22][23], so i don't feel left out. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: You see what I mean? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Your two replies shows exactly what I am talking about! --David Tornheim (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Right now, it really looks like there are two people trying to perpetuate a conflict, and I'm sure as hell not one of them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for focusing on the details: that's what I'm doing at article talk. The criteria are one such detail. I understand that is the goal. My advice here is to break it down into more bite-sized discussions with simpler questions, which could go to an RfC such as "Should we require that all misconceptions have RS stated by an expert?" I think you will get more progress than you did at the Criteria discussion that asked for too many changes. And then make more space for new editors to talk rather than disappear with TL;DR.  :) --David Tornheim (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your advice would be worth a lot more if you were to head on over there and add your thoughts the discussion here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I was the first editor to respond.  :) --David Tornheim (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I was too subtle. Read my above comment (and the next-higher comment of mine) as "Commenting here is pointless, inflammatory and somewhat hypocritical, but commenting at the article talk is just all around helpful. Please stop doing the former and do more of the latter." I can phrase it even more bluntly if you like, though I suspect you catch my drift by now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. My comment is also directed to editors who (like myself) may have come here unaware of the "ridiculous squabble.". Whether you want to take my advice is up to you. I can't see it making much difference which of the many forums this dispute is occurring should make much difference. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I was too subtle. It's not literally about the forum, it's about the topic. If you want to chastise other editors from a high horse (which is what you're doing here); you're not being helpful, indeed, you're helping perpetuate the dispute far more than I am with my dismissive responses to Bryn and continued mentions to you of what you could do to help. If you want to be helpful, there's a discussion that could always use more input (which is over there). You tend to be a very thoughtful editor when you're discussing content, so your voice might well be one of the more useful ones, there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(IMHO) Right now would be an excellent time for an admin to step in and warn both MPants at work and Fountains of Bryn Mawr that the battleground behavior needs to stop now. Take it to an appropriate venue, and don't keep bludgeoning this AfD. I predict a topic ban and interaction ban for both. Now is probably the last opportunity to let it go and avoid sanctions. You both have definitely made your respective cases. We heard you. We get it. Go and bicker no more. Don't say nobody warned you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who feels the need to keep responding to my comments saying "I'd rather talk about the article, let's go talk about the article" to give me shit for doing what I'm making a point of not doing really needs to either learn to shut their pie hole or learn to read; because you're failing at one or the other. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It is very useful to have all these collected on one place. Removing the article would be a disservice to our readers. Note that everything in the article is (supposed to be anyway) included in other wikipedia articles so there should be not content-based reason for deletion. Granted, the entries can be problematic at times and many individual items have been removed over the years. Agree that it can be a magnet for POV edits, but so can thousands of other articles; that's not a valid reason for deletion. The normal wikipedia rules for editing should suffice to keep the article within reason. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A very interesting and enjoyable article to read. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to learn and for the learning experience to be enjoyable. I found that article is a quick and enjoyable way to learn of many common mistaken beliefs that many people believe to be true. It is the type of article that could be very popular with our readers - so why on earth delete a cool and funky educational article? I also agree with pretty much all User:TompaDompa wrote. The article is reliably sourced, satisfies WP:LISTN and WP:GNG because many high quality sources exist for this topic. Finally, this article has survived three previous ‘articles for deletion’ community discussions, it would be terribly unfair - outside exceptional new information/justifications with large consensus - for the previous three discussions to be overturned, in my view.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In fact, so cool is this article, I think I shall read and discuss all the interesting factoids with my girlfriend, and have a laugh, so long as noone deletes this wonderful article before then. :p lol.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pure WP:ILIKEIT vote, not a valid justification to keep. 🔥flame🔥talk 13:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you bothered to read the !vote, you'd see he said "I also agree with pretty much all User:TompaDompa wrote. The article is reliably sourced, satisfies WP:LISTN and WP:GNG because many high quality sources exist for this topic. Finally, this article has survived three previous ‘articles for deletion’ community discussions, it would be terribly unfair - outside exceptional new information/justifications with large consensus - for the previous three discussions to be overturned, in my view." How is that just a WP:ILIKEIT vote? Smartyllama (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Casey Clarke Country Countdown[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article about a radio chart show. As always, a syndicated radio program is not entitled to an automatic notability freebie just because its own self-published website technically verifies that it exists -- to be notable enough for an encyclopedia article, it needs to be the subject of media coverage in sources other than its own PR or the radio stations that it's directly affiliated with. The kind of sources this needs simply aren't out there, however: even on a Google News search, all I can find is a single article in a community hyperlocal which briefly namechecks this show's existence in the process of being more about the host's other show than it is about this one. That's simply not enough media coverage to make a radio show notable. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only sources on this other than Wikiedia are Radio shows and an associated person's LinkedIn. --John M Wolfson (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret S. Lifferth[edit]

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches is limited to name checks and very short passing mentions. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America1000 19:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no assertion of notability in this article. In fact it argues cogently for the opposite. Szzuk (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fischer & Söhne AG[edit]

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

Industrial pollution. I nominated this for speedy as such and it was declined. Please delete so we can get this garbage out of mainspace. It has been bad from day 1 and is only getting worse. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm going with the judgement of those who can read the sources in their native language, to evaluate both the WP:N and WP:RS aspects. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nayeem (actor)[edit]

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

This actor Fails WP:NACTOR as lack of any notable movie, and fails WP:GNG as well. His most popular movie Chandni fails our WP:NFILM. Currently he is a director, with no notable work. The sources (including Bengali language) don't provide a significant coverage to this person other than Passing mention or trivial coverage related to the promotion of his first film. (Note: Do not confuse him with another young Bangladeshi actor with same name.[24] DBigXrayᗙ 20:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 20:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 20:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 20:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He was a popular film actor in Bangladesh. Most of his movie got huge response. The Nayem-Shabnaz pair was most populer pair on Bangladeshi film industry. Niloy (keep talking) 14:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Altaf (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-The nomination fails WP:BEFORE by a mile or so.
    • This source states:--
      • ঢাকাই চলচ্চিত্রের একটি আলোকিত অধ্যায়ের সঙ্গে জড়িয়ে আছে নাঈম-শাবনাজের নাম। নব্বয়ের দশকে তুমুল জনপ্রিয় এ জুটি দীর্ঘদিনে হল মিডিয়া থেকে দূরে রয়েছেন।---The names of Nayeem and Shabnaj are associated with a glorious phase of the Dhaka-film-industry.The pair, who was immensely popular during the 90s have maintained seclusion from the media, for a very long time.
      • নাঈম-শাবনাজ জুটির চলচ্চিত্রে অভিষেক হয় এ সিনেমাটির মাধ্যমে। সে সময় চলচ্চিত্রটি দারুণ ব্যবসায়িক সফলতা পায়। এর পর এ জুটি বহু দর্শকপ্রিয় চলচ্চিত্র উপহার দিয়েছেন।--The pair debuted in the cinema (Chadni, 1991) which was quite successful commercially.Post their debut, the pair has acted in multiple movies, which have been well-received by the audience.
    • This states:-
      • নব্বই দশকের জনপ্রিয় নায়ক নাঈম।........বেশ কিছু ছবিতে অভিনয় করে দর্শক প্রিয়তা লাভ করেন।--Nayeem was a popular actor of the 90s. He attained the adoration of the cine-goer-audience, courtesy his acting skills.
    • Multiple off-line hits are located across Bengali dailies of the 90s.

∯WBGconverse 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mentions in Tabloids as WBG listed above dont help in establishing any WP:SIGCOV. saying multiple hits exist also is of no value, specially when other actors with same name exist. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Tabloid? Have you gone bat-shit crazy or are you trolling?
    This states দেশীয় চলচ্চিত্রের অন্যতম সফল তারকা জুটি, তারকা দম্পতি এবং নব্বই দশকের তরুণ তরুণীর হৃদয়ে ঝড় তোলা জুটি নাইম শাবনাজ--One of the most successful pairs of the film-industry and heart-throb of the 90s.
    This states:-কয়েক বছরের চলচ্চিত্রে ক্যারিয়ারে তাঁরা জুটি হয়ে অভিনয় করেন ২০টির মতো ছবিতে। এর মধ্যে উল্লেখযোগ্য হচ্ছে— ‘জিদ’, ‘লাভ’, ‘চোখে চোখে’, ‘অনুতপ্ত’, ‘বিষের বাঁশি’, ‘সোনিয়া’, ‘টাকার অহংকার’, ‘সাক্ষাৎ’ ও ‘ঘরে ঘরে যুদ্ধ’।--In a career spanning a few years, the pair acted in around 20 films.Some mention-able ones are:- ................. Easily manages to secure a NACTOR pass for the subject.
    This states নাঈম-শাবনাজ অতিনীত অধিকাংশ ছবিই ছিল ব্যবসা সফল। --Most of the films acted upon by naeem-Shabnaj pair was commercially successful.
    This states:--শাবনাজ-নাঈম জুটি আসেন চাঁদনী ছবি দিয়ে। চাঁদনী ছবি সে সময় তোলপাড় করে ফেলে সিনেপাড়া থেকে সারাদেশ। বাংলা চলচ্চিত্রে তিনি নবাজাদা হিসেবেই পরিচিত ছিলেন।--Shabnaz-Naeem pair arrived in the film-scape with Chadni, which created ripples across the entire country. Naeem was revered as the prince of the Bangladesh film industry.
    This states:--movies like Chandni (1991) which launched newcomers Shabnaz and Nayeem to super-stardom.
    You ought not expect to locate significant coverage of the subject, in online news-sources, given there was hardly any internet-penetration in the country in the 90s and that he has led a secluded life, away from the spotlight, post millenium.
    A database locates multiple hits for Nayeem + S(h)abnaz in The Daily Star (pre-1995) but it will need some efforts to retrieve them.∯WBGconverse 07:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WBG as I warned you on ur talk, your Conduct at AfDs with all these ad hominems is getting awful lately, If you cannot follow WP:CIVIL and are going to dish up ad hominems such as this and [25], you should consider staying away from AFDs. Folks dont come to AfDs to listen to your venomous ad hominems.--DBigXrayᗙ 08:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the warning, about which I can't care any less.Back to content, please. ∯WBGconverse 08:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
??? Come on, you're requesting a relist because the discussion isn't going the way that you'd like. StrikerforceTalk 20:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pile on !votes? WBG just said it better than I could have. No point repeating the same argument twice. There is no reason to relist in the absence of a strong argument to delete. Consensus seems to be that WBG has thoroughly rebutted the nominator's argument, and the only other delete !vote is "per nom". There appears little reason to waste additional time of experienced editors relisting this for another week's discussion. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WBoG and others before me. The endorsement of the Bengali sources by an editor with whom I'm familiar and of whom I trust their judgment confirms my initial thoughts to keep. StrikerforceTalk 20:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The articles are kept because of them passing WP:NACTOR or clear WP:SIGCOV not because some site calls the actor "heartthrob", "hottie", "creator of ripples". It is expected that PR firm of the actor and the PR firm of the production house will be used, and the coverage has to be analyzed with this in mind. NACTOR Demands significant roles in multiple notable films. this actor fails to have even one. It demands significant "cult" following. no such indication. and finally there is no indication that this acotor has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 16:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of 4DX motion-enhanced films[edit]


List of 4DX motion-enhanced films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For the same reasons as the recently deleted List of D-Box films, i.e. WP:NOTCATALOG/WP:PROMO. 4DX is a similar system to D-Box. Barry Wom (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also the quality of sourcing is questionable. There are many references to Twitter, which is a no no. Ajf773 (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, the twitter-sourcing is fixed now. Sandrobost (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's a debate going on at the list of IMAX DMR films over the importance of that list, so this might not be the best comparison. Nevertheless, I think if any list has the right to exist between that one and this one, it's this one. Considering the fact that every movie gets a completely unique treatment of the format, 4DX seems like a more notable process to me than (70mm) DMR. Sandrobost (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion regarding the List of IMAX DMR films is irrelevant here (although I suspect that list will end at AfD at some point too). See WP:WHATABOUTX. As mentioned, 4DX is a similar system to D-Box and a list of films released in the latter was recently deleted. If that one went, this one should too. And for the same reasons. Barry Wom (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4DX is different from D-Box in many ways, so the fact that the D-Box list got deleted is not reason enough to delete this one too. Where D-Box is usually partially utilized in standard movie theaters (where most seats are normal/non-D-Box seats with a few D-Box seats)[1], 4DX always has a single entire cinema devoted to 4DX, where all seats are "upgraded". D-Box seats also only move/vibrate, whereas 4DX has a large number of environmental effects like wind, rain, fog, lights, and scents. 4DX is also a much more popular technology than D-Box: D-Box is only deployed in 35 countries[2], while 4DX has theaters in 57 countries[3]. This makes a list of 4DX films much more notable than a list of D-Box films. Also, as has been mentioned elsewhere on this page, the main reason for the deletion of the list of D-Box films was the poor condition that list was in, with much of it written like an advertisement. The list of 4DX films is already in much better condition, and if it is not deleted I'll clean it up even more. Sandrobost (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://tech.d-box.com/entertainment/theatrical-entertainment/
  2. ^ http://tech.d-box.com/entertainment/theatrical-entertainment/
  3. ^ http://www.cj4dx.com/aboutus/aboutus.php
  • Keep The 4DX process is not the same as D-BOX. First, 4DX requires CJ Group to code a separate file. With D-BOX, the studios usually attach the files onto the hard drives through deluxe. Meaning, 4DX is a separate delivery. Also, 4DX is a global format. 4DX films include many non-U.S. releases. The list also indicated whether a movie received a Premium Large Format treatment or not. And it can help people identify which movie was playing at a certain time in a 4DX auditorium. 4DX auditoriums are specially marked whereas D-BOX often are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MidwoodMartin (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 4DX is an overall environmental experience within a movie theatre that is internationally available. Attending a 4DX film generates a different experience than a regular cinema. A list of such movies can help people identify when and if specific movies were ever historically released in this format, and in which countries. Also, as the format develops, a history of which films were 4DX and how the technology changed would be of interest and use. The comparison to the D-Box movie list is not relevant to me here, as the decision to keep or delete a list should be on the merits, usefulness and interest of the list in question itself not what happened elsewhere. Harris Seldon (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: My later reading of the reasons for deleting the D-Box list of films was because the D-box list was seen as unsupported and promotional in nature, and not because of the technology. Therefore, just because 4DX is a similar technology, does not mean that this list should automatically be deleted. It should be reviewed on its own merits. Harris Seldon (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no particular opinion on keeping or deleting, but do suspect there's socking going on. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MidwoodMartin. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • SPI closed as not related, but there is a reddit thread that's pointing people here. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added my comment to this page two days before 4DX was even mentioned in that reddit link. I was not pointed here from another site, I found this page myself. Sandrobost (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same here. I wasn't even aware of the reddit discussion until it was mentioned today. So if it's pointing people here, it's not doing a very good job. Either way, the discussion on this page is about whether to keep or delete this article, and the merit of the points raised by each person. Harris Seldon (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's true that we're discussing the article. Still, I can't help noticing that your fourth edit after creating your account was to post WP:DRN. That's a little-used process, and it's somewhat surprising that a brand new user would even be aware of it. Let alone use it to discuss, in great detail, events which occurred weeks before their account was created. But, whatever. We're here to discuss the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Honestly... Let's stick to the point, shall we? WP:ATTP This is not the place to discuss nonsense like this. Sandrobost (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That reddit post was about the IMAX page's redesign, not the 4DX deletion page. And it wasn't even linking to that but simply discussing the changes made to it. MidwoodMartin (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fully aware of the whole deletion process, but just wondering what else is required to make a decision about this article? This is the third time more comments have been requested, but nothing new has been said here for a couple weeks. The original request for deletion was because the technology was seen as being the same as d-box and the referencing/sourcing for this article was bad. Others have explained that the technology is actually different, and one editor has offered to clean up the referencing/sourcing. Without additional comments is the way forward to keep the page and just fix the sourcing? Harris Seldon (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Harris Seldon (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - It appears they are notable, but the article definitely needs to be expanded to show this. Nominator withdrawal as WP:SNOW applies with this new information. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Mary Barth[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO - a piano teacher is not notable in of itself. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as creator: There are many more sources on this woman, I've started including some of them in the article and will include more as time premits. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep: There is a long-standing agreement that people with an entry in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography have inherent notability, with the exception of a handful of representative entries (listed at the DNZB article). As Barth isn't a representative entry but has a listing due to her notability, this AfD should be withdrawn. There are a few dozen AfD precedents covering DNZB bios; they were all kept. Schwede66 21:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but expand. Agree with the reasoning of User:Schwede66. Moriori (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inhalt Corporation[edit]

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

No independent sources found. Editor General of Wiki (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toppr[edit]

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

Delete I am unable to locate any reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. References either fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 15:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication of notability for the product, the supposed subject of this article; the company fares little better. Huon (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dogiz[edit]

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

Could find no significant coverage in English or Hebrew sources (including with Hebrew name of company). While there is some coverage the lack of multiple independent significant coverage from reliable secondary sources suggests company does not pass WP:NCORP Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --->opened google play --> searched dogiz = 5000 downloads. Szzuk (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Isshin-ryū#Notable Karateka of Shimabuku. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 21:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Fierro[edit]

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

Speedy delete of repost was declined since content and references were different but the underlying reason for deletion remains. Does not meet WP:MANOTE. High rank and Hall of Fame membership are not indications of notability. PRehse (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have done a good faith media search and find no grounds for inclusion of the subject in an encyclopedia. Bongomatic 15:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I certainly understand the discussion taking place, but felt that her "Attack Prevention" program in Long Island, her television show, her book and the many awards she has won were enough to keep her in the encyclopedia. I've noticed over time that women are underrepresented in Wikipedia, and particularly in martial arts, and hoped that this would be an important addition. Redwhiteandblue (talk) 07:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Redwhiteandblue (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
  • Delete She doesn't meet the notability criteria for martial artists (WP:MANOTE), athletes, or authors. Martial arts ranks and martial arts halls of fame have never been deemed to show notability. Appearing on a local public access TV show is insufficient to meet WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:NACTOR. Virtually every dojo has a self defense program so that's not noteworthy. Finally, she lacks the significant independent coverage from reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG. The most detailed coverage of her is the autobiography she wrote at usadojo.com titled "Marilyn Fierro Hanshi of Many Talents". I don't think any of the references listed qualifies towards meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I would like to be able to say keep for her since my views on systemic bias in sports reporting are pretty well known, but I can't find any independent coverage for WP:GNG. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Isshin-ryū#Notable_Karateka_of_Shimabuku. I merged what verifiable material there was in the article to a short paragraph there. she can wait there until such time as there is coverage for a standalone article. I think she probably should be notable, but at the current time does not pass GNG based on sources that I can find. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 16:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Isshin-ryū#Notable_Karateka_of_Shimabuku per Insertcleverphrasehere. I did a Google search and came to a similar conclusion. She does have a book that is popular enough to be on goodreads, but that doesn't make her notable. I didn't see RS in the article that is secondary or that makes her notable. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Isshin-ryū#Notable_Karateka_of_Shimabuku as per Insertcleverphrasehere - while the subject doesn't currently meet WP:GNG she would appear to meet the criteria for inclusion in that list, and this resolves some of my discomfort deleting a person who probably should be notable based on her accomplishments but who has not been subject to sufficient, online-indexed, public scrutiny to meet WP:GNG at this time. Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Initially majority-delete votes, but further analysis flipped consensus to a strong keep. If anyone is unhappy with my close, take it to my talk page and I may reverse it, but the delete opinions offer little reasoning compared to the keep votes. (non-admin closure) Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington Business Park[edit]

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

A directory-like page on an unremarkable business park. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is hyper-local and / or routine notices. Created by Special:Contributions/Mbrowne85 with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:GNG we should keep the article. I did look into merging into Theale but decided against it per content of each article. gidonb (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find any significant coverage in secondary sources. Few results that come up include company registration listing and real estate advertising. AusLondonder (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not much there in terms of secondary sources. Sources in the article appear mostly primary. Fails WP:GNG, WP:GEOFEAT. SportingFlyer talk 21:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Carmona, Matthew; Tiesdell, Steve, eds. (2007). Urban Design Reader. London: Architectural Press. pp. 338–339. ISBN 978-0-7506-6531-5. Retrieved 2018-09-17.

      The book notes:

      Arlington Business Park, Theale, Berkshire: In a lakeside setting, on the edge of Reading, adjacent to the M4.

      The book notes:

      The perceived benefits associated with urban design considerations at Arlington Business Park are relatively parochial and conservative. The investors—and there are several—emphasize their property’s intrinsic qualities to its occupants and little benefit is assumed to stem from the relationship between one building and the next. Privacy and control are stressed and the ability of occupants to alter and personalize their own environment is seen as being of no significance. The image of the business park, for example, is seen to be important in so far as it provides no surprises to investors or clients. The quality of the overall vision of the development can be expressed in terms of a trust in the developer who is known to provide a good standard product that is known to attract good quality occupants. Investors do not see a need to require additional features that could improve its market position: in essence, demand is seen to follow and reflect the location of the scheme and the reputation of its developer.

    2. Bennett, John; Jayes, Sarah (1998). The Seven Pillars of Partnering: A Guide to Second Generation Partnering. London: Thomas Telford Publishing (Institution of Civil Engineers). p. 58. ISBN 978-0-7277-2690-2. Retrieved 2018-09-17.

      The book notes:

      On Arlington's business park at Theale near Reading the contractors were heavily involved in 'learning' about each new office building, before agreeing a fixed price.

      Arlington began the procurement process by appointing an independent design team to validate and respond to its initial brief. The team was then asked to produce a concept design and progress this to scheme design stage. Arlington's budget for the project was based on market considerations.

      Although the design was well developed the professional team was asked not to specify products or systems – for example the cladding – so that the contractors had leeway to exercise their commercial and technical skills.

      Once the design team was happy with the scheme design three potential contractors were asked to participate in the first stage of the tender process and to provide a set of competitive rates based on their developed understanding of the scheme.

      [several more paragraphs]

    3. Williams, Richard (2015-02-27). "Patron set to buy Arlington Business Park for £80m". Property Week.

      The article notes:

      Private equity group Patron Capital has placed under offer a South East business park for a price understood to be more than £80m. The investor, along with asset manager APAM, is close to exchanging contracts with developer Goodman to buy Arlington Business Park in Theale, Berkshire (pictured), at a yield of 8.5%.

      ...

      The office campus, just off junction 12 of the M4 motorway, is currently part of the Arlington Business Parks Partnership (ABPP) - a joint venture between Goodman and Legal & General Property.

      The 48-acre park is let to tenants including KPMG and Royal Bank of Scotland, but has struggled to compete with the resurgent Reading town centre office market and the nearby Green Park business park, just outside Reading. PepsiCo, a longtime tenant of Arlington Business Park, will move its 95,000 sq ft office to Green Park later this year.

    4. Midolo, Emanuele (2017-10-06). "Park life in UK's 'knowledge spine' keeps getting better". Property Week.

      The article notes:

      This renewed interest in business parks has led to a wave of activity in the Thames Valley. One example is what Patron Capital and APAM have done at Arlington Business Park in Theale, near Reading. Patron bought the 48-acre park from Goodman in 2015 for £80m and has since changed the face of the park, creating a large communal facility, a café and a gym. Occupiers now include Regus, Wrigley, Clearswift and CTIL.

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

    Cunard (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 08:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fritz[edit]

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

This reads like a serious piece of self promotion. Only a single ref and searched yield plenty of advertisements for his books from Amazon and the like, but nothing of any independence and reliability. Fails WP:AUTHOR  Velella  Velella Talk   18:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies PROF with multiple highly cited works with 100+ cites. "The Path of Least Resistance": At least 654 cites in GScholar (listed at least three times with 520+93+41). "Creating": At least 147 cites (listed at least three times with 129+12+6). "Corporate Tides": At least 129 cites (listed at least three times with 117+8+4). There could be more for these and there are more for his other books. There are nearly six thousand library holdings of his books: [26]. Book review of The Managerial Moment of Truth: [27]. The Path of Least Resistance seems to have gone through multiple editions of 1984 (DMA, Stillpoint Publishing, Fawcett Columbine, Ballantine Books), 1989 (Ballantine, Fawcett Columbine) and 1994 (Butterworth Heinemann), which is an indicator of popularity. Our article lists a lot of film festival awards. James500 (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PROF as stated above. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Edwards (politician)[edit]

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

coverage of unelected political candidate is only with the context of his candidacy for elective office ... does not meet threshold of WP:NPOL Wolfson5 (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this would meet minimum standards for notability. I might be mistaken. He's received some big name endorsements. To be clear, Ocasio-Cortez hasn't won any office but is notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uhtregorn (talk • contribs) 18:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ocasio-Cortez easily passes WP:GNG on her own, please avoid WP:OSE arguments. SportingFlyer talk 06:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:PROMO/NPOV matters. SportingFlyer talk 06:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins. This isn't as sourced as it looks, because many of the footnotes are just unnecessary reduplications of other footnotes — the Steinhauser, Tuohy, Re and Votesmart references each show up three times apiece and Chooljian shows up twice — so there are really only nine distinct sources here. That said, candidates are not automatically entitled to have articles just for being candidates — if they haven't already been elected to office, then they have to have a strong claim to being notable for more than just the fact of being candidates. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is such a special case, because she's already so bloody "flying around the country to endorse other candidates" hyperfamous, so "Republicans are desperate to turn the national election into a personal referendum on her rather than on Trump" hyperfamous, that even I know her name even though I'm a Canadian who's not going particularly far out of my way to follow a foreign election all that closely. But every other candidate in every other district has not automatically cleared the same bar she has just because a bit of local campaign coverage exists, because a bit of local campaign coverage always exists — again, what makes Ocasio Cortez a special case is that her coverage has nationalized unbelievably far out of proportion to what every candidate everywhere could always show, while the coverage shown here has not. Bearcat (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting points all around! Did not know some of these, but glad I do now! Uhtregorn (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NPOL. State Liquor Control Board and small-town sheriff do not make notability. Tone is overly promotional, but that's to be expected in election season. I'd say it could event be a G11 candidate. Bkissin (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nominator withdrawal - WP:BEFORE check was flawed. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shinji Maejima[edit]

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

Seems to be WP:PROMO. No sources, so the claim of significance of creating the first Japanese translation of One Thousand and One Nights cannot be verified as true. May fail WP:GNG and WP:NBIO as well. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It seems like this nomination is based on scanning the database for "unsourced" as it shows no indication of an adequate WP:BEFORE. The nominator needs to explain how WP:PROMO applies to a factual description of a person who is not living. The claim of being the first translation is easily verified, for example [28] from the first page of a Google Books search. Maejima was a pioneer in Islamic studies and Arabic literature in Japan, and easily passes WP:AUTHOR#3 and WP:PROF#1 (though not via the usual GS citation pathway). As a WP:VOLUNTEER there's only so much time to spend, but here's a 1972 review of one of his many books, found with a trivial Google search, if it helps [29]. Bakazaka (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One Hand Clapping (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. It was created by an IP in the pre-Seigenthaler Wikipedia, and the two attempts at nominating at VfD (as was) were reverted as "vandalism". How times have changed. I don't believe the article has ever had any sources in it in the near-13 years of its existence, and I can't find any. It doesn't help that there appears to be a 1974 documentary by Paul McCartney with the same name, but even that doesn't have much in the way of sources either. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Wow – as the nominator says, it's hard to believe this article has stayed on Wikipedia for 13 years. Literally just one single (which didn't chart), and nothing else. It also looks like the single was the only release on the Curve of the Earth label, and looking and pictures of the single's sleeve and label, it looks as though it might have been a self-designed and self-released record label. Guitarist Conrad Warre moved to the US and has his own band called Bees Deluxe, as well as running his own media and communications business [30], [31], [32]. Saxophonist brother Jason doesn't appear to have been a full-time member of The Way of the West, and in any case that band's entire output only amounted to five singles (only one of which made no. 54 in the UK; the rest didn't chart) before their record company shelved their debut album and they split up. But all this is by-the-by... I grew up in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s and I don't ever recall seeing anything about One Hand Clapping in the music press of the time, and I very much doubt we'll be able to find any in-depth sources now. Richard3120 (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BAND. desmay (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to States and territories of Australia. Tone 08:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ranked list of states and territories of Australia[edit]

Ranked list of states and territories of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nom on behalf on an IP editor. Rationale is:

States and territories of Australia has sortable tables that show the same contents as this page. --173.166.74.233 (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reyk YO! 13:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Pro Fastpitch Career Lists[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of music museums[edit]

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

totally unsourced list that fails WP:LISTN as the large majority of the entries do not have their own pages. it is impossible to even identify where most of the places are outside of the name of the town. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The concept of a list of museums focusing on music already exists as standalone articles in Dutch and German, from which this English article is a translation. It is certainly unfinished but it is not 'totally unsourced' - there are several footnotes to reliable source lists of music museums in specific countries. There ought to be at least one footnote per country subsection (in my opinion) but the lack of that for the time being is not sufficient to claim that it fails the notability criteria. Also, the fact that there are many redlinks is not inherently a reason to delete the article. Rather it is an invitation to create those articles too. Wittylama 14:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wittylama: In the selection criteria for lists WP:CSC there are 3 types of lists a: Every entry meets the notability criteria and should either be blue or red linked, but if redlinked they have to be verifiably à member of the list b: Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria and these lists are better off in the main article which in this case would be Music museums. and c: Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. This list is none of the above and when nominated had no sources whatsoever. If we are going to consider it is the first kind of list then every single entry that is not blue linked must be sourced even if it is redlinked. Just because this kind of list exists on other wikiprojects is not a reason for it to exist here. Each wiki project has its own criteria and guidelines. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Domdeparis: I've just quickly looked for a footnote for the first items in the list which didn't [yet] have their own article (diff) - they were easy to find and I imagine that it would be a simple (if tedious) task to continue down the list. If I were to create the list myself I would probably have specified 'musical instrument museums' (and thereby excluding various halls of fame, those dedicated to individual bands/styles of music) and so that might be a way to narrow and thereby improve the scope of this article. I do agree that the article scope as it stands is vague and prone to being a hodge-podge collection of items. However, the fact that it's currently sub-optimal doesn't mean it has to be shot on sight. Wittylama 14:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wittylama: what do you think about drfatifying it until it is up to scratch? Dom from Paris (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know what @Ymnes: thinks about that idea - as they are the one who translated the article into English and would, therefore presumably, be the one doing any work in draft mode. Wittylama 15:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what 'drfatifying' means, but I'll reply here soon. My list is very much OK now. Ymnes (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, to put it right, "large majority" in this application text ("large majority of the entries do not have their own pages") is not true . When I calculate it, it is circa half of them (55%). When I compare it to the Dutch language version of this list, one can see that especially those articles that are not yet written in English, are yet written in Dutch. See the blue links in the following countries there (nl:Lijst van muziekmusea): Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Poland and Spain. Since I have written hundreds of those museums in Dutch, I know generally that those articles are well sourced.
Another thing that is simply not true, is "it is impossible to even identify where most of the places are outside of the name of the town". In fact it is incredibly easy to find each of the museums. The internet is full of mentions of music museums. This list could very well have existed without any source, since one can verify the entries very easily.
When this application was done here, I was still busy building it up. Now I have completed it, the list complies very much to the rules Wikipedia has set in WP:LISTN. Let me cite:
  • "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". I have given dozens of sources in the article that show that there are many sources that write about music museums, musicians museums, musical instrument museums, etc. There are really plenty of them.
  • "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."
  • "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable"
So according to the rules, this list is very much OK. Each country contains blue links or sources or both, and there are dozens of sources given that refer to music museums as a group. The rules on Wikipedia do not require to do more than that. I work with the list in Dutch for two years now and I have the experience that the list is very correct. Next to that one can verify the existence of each museum very easily.
When I view what is the usual way how lists on Wikipedia are referenced with sources (I checked some dozens of lists in the Category:Lists of museums by country), than my list may be rewarded as a featured list. This is really a good list in comparison to other lists on Wikipedia.
I can find no reason at all, why this list should be deleted. I ask the applicant therefore to remove the nomination. Ymnes (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A list doesn't need any blue links to be notable per WP:CSC bullet point 2. Szzuk (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CSC bullet point 2 says that one possible criterion that a Wikipedia list can be written to satisfy is "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles ...." That does not apply to this list, since many of the entries on the list are notable and have independent articles of their own. That said, see my recommendation below. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:CSC bullet point 1 says that another possible criterion that a Wikipedia list can be written to satisfy is "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. ..." Since many of the entries on this list are notable to have their own articles, I recommend that the list be kept, but I would support cleaning it up to remove the museums that neither have articles of their own nor have citations to help establish their notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of mammal genera. Tone 08:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of mammal species[edit]

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

(for some preceding discussion, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#"List_of_mammal_species"_article)

This massive alphabetical list is a functional duplicate of lists already in existence: List of mammal genera, List of placental mammals, List of monotremes and marsupials, and a number of separate sub-lists, e.g. List of rodents - all of which share the characteristic of having a rational layout organized by taxonomic relationships. In contrast, an alphabetical order is essentially an arbitrary one for this content, as there is no practical reason for requiring the material sorted by alphabet. If a user knows enough about a species to search by genus or species name, they will simply use the search bar - no need for this vast pile as an intermediate step. If they require taxonomic, evolutionary or etymological information, the existing list articles are much better sources.

As a secondary issue, the list currently is in a horrible state (having been copied over from Wikiversity [33]) and contains hundreds of dab links and thousands of redlinks. That can be cleared up, but given the above concerns, I strongly question whether it is worth the effort. Lastly, referencing this thing will always remain a pipe dream. I suggest deletion or redirection to List of mammal genera (although I'd consider the name unlikely as a search term). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "keep AND merge"? And did you see the bit about the search bar above? And what do these references have to do with anything...? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The content is already at List of placental mammals and List of monotremes and marsupials. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To give an idea of how notable this is. Leo1pard (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wozencraft, W. C. (2005). "Panthera leo". In Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M. (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 546. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494.
  2. ^ A World List of Mammalian Species
  3. ^ Mammals of North America: Second Edition
  4. ^ Marine Mammals of the World: A Comprehensive Guide to Their Identification
  5. ^ COMMON NAMES MAMMALS WORLD PB
  • Delete. Although this list superficially satisfies WP:LISTN, it has a major flaw: anyone who knows the scientific genus name can type that into the search box, and find the article containing not only the names of the species but also useful details about them.
I endorse OP's argument that better and more useful lists exist, and that an alphabetic list is arbitrary.
There is also the problem noted by OP: the links are to the specific epithet of the species, which is not a distinguishing feature. No zoologist would ever refer to a species by its specific epithet alone, except in casual conversation when the genus was already clear. As a result, the article contains literally thousands of bad links. I patrol the User:DPL bot report Disambiguation pages with links. Since 24 September 2018, I have been presented with and have fixed 42 links to DAB pages in the range a-atys alone. I have no intention of fixing any bad links other than those to DAB pages. (As of today, there are 6,236 bad links to DAB pages; see WP:TDD. New bad links are created at the rate of around 500-800/day, and trying to keep on top of them is a full-time job for several editors.)
IMO the best solution is WP:TNT. Narky Blert (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I estimate about 5% errors in the links to DAB pages. So far (a-ce), I have found 1 misspelled genus, 3 misspelled epithets, 1 extinct species, and 1 unknown to science (no, not the Giant Rat of Sumatra, unfortunately). Narky Blert (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and I agree with Narky Blert also. The list isn't where anyone would go to search for a named species, and if they don't know the name, then the list is of precisely no use. Further, the list is entirely redundant with the existing and better lists already named. The dreadful mess of bad links makes the situation if possible worse, but being completely functionless as well as redundant does seem a good reason for deletion. A third reason is getting Wikipedia a bad name, just as it is starting to work its way towards a decent reputation through careful selection, citation, and review. This sort of list is what the encyclopedia needs not to have. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to List of mammal genera. This list is of little use to anyone, and a tremendous amount of work would have to go into fixing it—which, as pointed out above, would just be duplicated effort, as other mammal taxonomy lists exist and give a much better treatment to the topic. Enwebb (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This type of excessive list directly violates WP:NOTDIR policy and gets into excessive cross-categorization. We already have lists like List of mammal genera that serve the same function without these issues as well as the taxobox navigation, etc. Nothing in the content is useful for a merge, and I don't see the term really being useful for a redirect since the list of mammal genera will pop up in the search bar anyways. Even with all that, the current state of the article is not reasonably fixable as others have mentioned. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Genera" is a bit of a niche word. People might not know what it means or if it is the article they're looking for, which is why the redirect from species could be nice. Enwebb (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it’s unnavigable, incomprehensible, and impractical. Also, Cloud forest, what source have you been using for species validity? IUCN and ITIS, for example, will say different species are and are not valid.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per OP and discussion at Tree of Life linked to therein. This list is cluttered, poorly organized and of unknown sourcing with little referencing. I see no value in it being kept. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Kingofaces43 and others above. Current article offering is redundant and no plan has been demonstrated for what the article could ever be improved to. Loopy30 (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move move to "List of mammals" What if you are a creationist? The list is alphabetical no hierarchical, by the way you can use control F in your computer Cloud forest (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Creationists don't believe in species, they believe in 'kinds' and 'baraminology', both of which fall under WP:FRINGE, and which can for that reason be ignored except in articles about pseudo-science. Narky Blert (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Narky Blert (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shaunak Chakraborty[edit]

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

Fails WP: ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. References include Google search and an alternative Wikipedia - neither of which are acceptable or reliable secondary sources. Another, whilst in Hindi, appears to be just the lyrics to one of his poems (nothing else). Dan arndt (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Okay, but why should we keep this article? You have not provided a valid reason. StormContent 15:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The fact that at least half of the sources are Google search results tells me that there's really no "there" there. The other two sources I can assess (Refs 2 and 4 are identical) are a barebones profile listing and a Goodreads blurb that I'm fairly certain was written by the author or someone on his behalf. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I've waited a couple days for the article creator to find RS indicating notability for this teenaged writer; could probably have been speedied. Strong whiff of sockpuppetry from the two "keep" posts above. Wikipedia is not the place to launch your writing career. Donutron (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the given reference are of google search results. Other also not reliable.-- Godric ki Kothritalk to me 07:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not DeleteHe is having more than 6000 followers in his facebook page https://www.facebook.com/shaunakchakrabortyofficial so this article should not delete. no Disagree with this deletion request. Shivangi646 (talk) — Shivangi646 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Annoimot (talk · contribs).
  • That link is virtually content-free, and explicitly noted to have been contributed by a user of the site as opposed to a serious journalist or book reviewer. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Free Studio. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DVDVideoSoft[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP just like the last time it was deleted. wumbolo ^^^ 12:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Free Studio

I am also nominating the following related pages because had prod but is a related article and merge candidate:

Free Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • As nominator of this AfD, I support deleting the other article, since I'm the one who PRODded it. wumbolo ^^^ 09:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepComment DVDVideoSoft and merge 'Free Studio'. We are actually interested in the software and Google Books and Google Scholar full a number of results, albeit a lot of false results (Religious books for me) and a lot of little more than passing mentions in how it has been used. It's implausible there are not offline reviews of this. Probably needs to be under WP:NSOFTWARE rather than WP:NCORP so perhaps Free Studio should stand as the main article. I am minded WP:BEFORE may not have been adequate.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What's inadequate is WP:NSOFTWARE, which is only an essay on notability, so the notability of software is under WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. wumbolo ^^^ 13:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done a little with the referencing/cites/recoveries which now spans about 10 years and remain believed there is sufficient for keep as a merged article about the software product (bundle). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Free Studio (and Keep Free Studio - several sources, passes GNG) as notability comes from the software - the software looks notable, the company doesn't based on current sources. Saying that, if more sources are out there ping me. Widefox; talk 13:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I agree that the software appears notable but the article on the company fails WP:NCORP. Merge to Free Studio. HighKing++ 14:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Due to controversies on a set of articles of which this is one can I respectively suggest admins only close this and a full 168 hours is allowed before relist and non-admins carefully consider before re-listing. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it hard that either would be deleted or both. If WP:NSOFTWARE is inaccurate then what is our guideline? A ten years old software with coverage in multiple reliable sources should continue having stand alone article. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This discussion is tainted by the ANI. I'm not inclined to vote while that is so recent. Szzuk (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Szzuk, No ANI has been mentioned in this discussion to this point until you have brought it up, and you have not identified the particular ANI in question. And that ANI, if it is the one I am thinking of, was in my option raised due the the disruption fallout from PRODs and AfDs. Now in my opinion there is no plausible outcome from this discussion up to this point apart from a merge to 'Free Studio', and to some degree I have implicitly given a commitment to attempt a good faith merge (unless someone else volunteers and does it right) should merge be the final outcome. From my point of view the sooner that is done, dusted and cleared the less disruption it is to me and likely Wikipedia in general. At the risk of tainting HighKing (if I recall rightly, and I may not, I think we have on occasion voted differently at AfDs and maybe have connected on some Ireland related articles), I in good faith believe him to be independent and not tainted by the ANI or other associated fracious AfD discussions in this set, and suggest closer notes this. From my point of view I would prefer a WP:BOLD closer decision on this rather than a relist due to upcoming effort required in the merge. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:01, 3 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. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 23:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DownThemAll![edit]

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

Just like the last time it was deleted, it is still not notable, has no mentions in reliable sources, and has only routine coverage and passing mentions. wumbolo ^^^ 12:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "Given that browser extensions are WP:MILL" - there's actually no basis in policy, guideline, essay or discussion for that is there? In fact, the consensus of browser extension articles that exist is the opposite, isn't it? Widefox; talk 19:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic, a source is not "independent" if it is owned by a company that owns multiple properties, or links to downloads of that product. Independence in this case means not directly tied to the subject of the article. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not my logic. What I meant by MacWorld and PCWorld not being independent isn't that they weren't independent of the software, but that they can't count as two sources since MacWorld is affiliated to PCWorld. The other thing I definitely did not say. wumbolo ^^^ 16:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a bit dismissive to label them all lacking "independent", when the term is used in two different ways. They have different authors and content, making the IDG link seem stretching. Beware of WP:BLUDGEON, let others find sources and improve the place. Widefox; talk 01:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the sources identified by Newslinger are sufficient. I think Wumbolo's interpretation of when sources count as "independent" is excessively strict. SJK (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The kind of article that can be helpful sometime to somebody. -- Nsda (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEFUL is an arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Widefox; talk 13:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Due to controversies on a set of articles of which this is one can I respectively suggest admins only close this and a full 168 hours is allowed before relist and non-admins carefully consider before re-listing. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer I agree with Newslinger - the subject specific notability guidelines quoted here that do not apply and their shortcuts are: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (NPRODUCT) Wikipedia:Notability (events) (ROUTINE), plus NSOFTWARE is an essay (there is no software guideline), and there's no basis in policy, guideline, essay for browser extensions being inherently non-notable or requiring a higher bar per MILL, in fact we have many such articles that have been kept at AfD so the consensus is that other ones are, so they can be notable (WP:OTHERSTUFF applies). Widefox; talk 22:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a great article, but I think the sources are sufficient. --LichWizard talk 23:31, 1 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) Matt14451 (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FireTune[edit]

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

Declined PROD. My concern was that this product is not notable and has no mention in reliable sources. With regards to the sources present in the article, the Lifehacker article is promotional and mostly a press release, and Gigaom is a blog so it can't demonstrate notability here. wumbolo ^^^ 18:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More sources in German: https://www.chip.de/downloads/FireTune_14745423.html, https://www.netzwelt.de/download/3798-firetune.html, https://www.pcwelt.de/news/Firetune-0-5-Firefox-Tuner-in-neuer-Version-281819.html And in Spanish: https://es.ccm.net/download/descargar-3239-firetune, https://www.malavida.com/es/soft/firetune/
I'm looking for non-English sources because Firefox is more popular in Europe than in the US. I'm sure you can find more in Russian, Italian, Polish, etc. But I think just the English sources would establish notability anyway. Laurent (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment sourcing is weak. It's true that if notable it stays notable, but maybe a merge would be best. The nom is slightly off 1. this is software (rather than a commercial "product") 2. Lifehacker is a review (although weak) 3. Gigaom is used over 1000x as a source in WP. Widefox; talk 14:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Each piece of software is and remains a product, no matter how many times you call it something else. Thanks for pointing this out with Gigaom; perhaps we should remove it from the articles in which it is cited. wumbolo ^^^ 17:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A software product is a product yes, but not all software are products no. So not per se, no, see Software a generic term that refers to a collection of data or computer instructions where the word "product" is only used in the commercial section. It'd be wrong for some software. source code isn't necessarily a product either, but is software. Software may also be a service e.g. Software as a service. If you're serious about removing over a thousand references I suggest you take that up elsewhere and gain consensus. Widefox; talk 18:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is so bad that it cites a blog, then it's better to just remove all unreliable sources from those articles, article by article. And there is a policy called WP:BLOGS. wumbolo ^^^ 13:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My point is clear for everyone else to see - yes while blogs are generally not allowed, they are still allowed, and this one used in >1K articles (whatever the individual merit of that particular site). WP:BLOGS isn't as black and white as you think - it says Exercise caution, not never use. Attempting to hold this article to a standard way above others (as you have done on many of these AfDs) is not a convincing argument for me. I'm undecided myself on this one, it doesn't appear notable but we shouldn't be swayed by overly-simplistic mass deletion attempts where everything is incorrectly labelled a "product". For certain this will be a WP:PERMASTUB, so for that alone it should be merged or deleted. These noms seem to be applying overly simplistic understanding of the rules (and misconceptions) for mass deletion. Is that in the reader's interest? (There's certainly no consensus for it at these 20-40 AfDs.) Widefox; talk 18:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OF COURSE there is no consensus in these AfDs when you and Bradv provide so stupid (read: not based on policy and often based on essays) arguments! And then you vote to topic ban me. I was almost inclined to stop AfDing because of you stalking me, but I will not stop because I don't want to leave the articles to people like you to determine notability. wumbolo ^^^ 13:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate place for discussing that allegation is WP:ANI#User:Wumbolo not here. Widefox; talk 13:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you hear yourself?! You are the one wanting to discuss my "misconceptions", and constantly bringing it up (see WP:DEADHORSE). So you can talk about it wherever you please but I can't defend myself anywhere except at ANI? wumbolo ^^^ 19:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My 'gut' feeling would be to delete as a Firefox specific add on that lasted a couple of years. But there are arguably just sufficient sources. The last review on the article was just before it discontinued. If there is a viable merge target that would be better. Probably for me what is the most significant aspect is how it became no longer available due to a logo issue ... not obvious from this angle at Firefox#Trademark and logo (Others may have been affected as well).Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's right it looks borderline to me, leaning towards weak delete. The logo/branding issue was a notable topic, but this is too out of scope for Mozilla software rebranded by Debian. A merge target isn't obvious to me right now. Widefox; talk 10:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC). (I rhave subsequent re-entered the discussion lower).[reply]
  • I indicated my main concern was the logo/branding (and perhaps if that was more widespread). I have some some searching and decided not to pursue. While I would perhaps have gone weak delete I am minded there have been other sources found which I have little interest in checking. I am currently therefore leaving the decision to others. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge - there's enough sources above to pass GNG - good work User:WikiLaurent. It may be notable, but a small topic, so merging to a target that isn't obvious to me is also OK. Widefox; talk 21:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not every addon is notable. In this case, there are only 2 sources, the others are download sites. Source 1 from Lifehacker looks a bit promotional, so it is probably not neutral. Source 2 is a blog. It doesn't meet GNG nor WP:NPRODUCT. » Shadowowl | talk 19:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For information, CNET and Clubic aren't just download sites, they do proper reviews too. download.cnet.com is used as a source 380 times in Wikipedia, and clubic.com 50 times, it's also used 741 times in French Wikipedia. Laurent (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you justify why you're using NPRODUCT, when per the discussion above this is disputed relevance here? Can you say which company is involved? Shouldn't this be merged into that companies article per NPRODUCT if correct and not notable? Widefox; talk 00:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't know what NPRODUCT is? I'm just providing third-party sources which I believe are relevant and reliable. I don't know what company created this add-on and don't know if they have a page on Wikipedia. If they do, yes maybe we can merge to that page. Laurent (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keepDelete On balance weighing various aspects of this article mind me it should be deleted unless something significant emerges to change my opinion. The article itself in its current form does not add much value to the encyclopedia. My non-authoritative perusals indicate Totalidea went on into the small 'apps' market and the logo issue might have been an excuse to drop the product and move on to other things which might earn more revenue. There appears to have been some interest at the time in tuning Firefox to access Tor and I have seen one suggestion Firetune may have been helpful but it was not the only tuning required and may not have been a primary purpose of Firetune. It may have been the king of Firefox optimisation for a short reign but I suspect technology moved on and it could only address one bottleneck of the user performance experience. But such claims would need verification and strong sourcing in the article. The products life was two years or less and the reviews can have a degree of 'hype' which needs to be considered. Overall I don't think I've seen this product as been proved as a significant lead or best of breed in its field for a really significant period of time WP:SUSTAIN. Thankyou. 10:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • However I am just self-wondering if some of this reasoning has just applied a form of CSD:A7 to software? ... I may try some article improvement to see if that helps. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can think of plenty of articles that "do not add much value to the encyclopedia", but that's not a valid criteria to keep or delete an article. If it's sourced appropriately and sources are reliable then it's supposed to be kept. If we start deleting articles because we feel they are uninteresting there will be a lot to go on Wikipedia. Laurent (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reviews are a mixed bunch and at the second from ClubIC .. the one originally posted here ... looks more like a paper rehash. None mention alternatives. Missing cite details are also an issue. They dont mention any alternative product.But in totality they begin to tell a lifecycle story if one digs deeply enough. I should have mentioned gut feel but my guts are all over the NI and various AfDs at the moment. That said I am working the article ... I would hope constructively given my delete vote and keeps are welcome to tell me to stop and revert if they like. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've worked the article and I've reached the point where I can say Weak keep. The article demonstrates better with the lifecycle of four years and its Firetune's place in history is in better. It is not apparent if the Fasterfox product was better .. but that went some time ago. People wishing to improve the article please feel free to improve ... I know my reasoning at AfD discussions can be controversial and I'm oftern better working improvements to the article and seeing where it leads. thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for updating the article, it's very good now and quite comprehensive actually. I feel this kind of article is valuable to keep a record of a now discontinued software program. Laurent (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Teja Cherupalli[edit]

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

Contested Prod - Non-notable martial artist - no support of WP:MANOTE PRehse (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable martial artist. There are claims about his prowess in karate, but he's not ranked in the top 700 in his division (75 kg.) by the World Karate Federation[34]. The coverage of him saying he wants to make the Olympics as a boxer is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Definitely doesn't meet WP:MANOTE and his announcement about switching to boxing is likely WP:BLP1E. Papaursa (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for above mentioned reasons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadessKB (talk • contribs) 15:05, 237 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON, I think he will be notable if he qualifies for 2020 olympics or some other similar tournament, but for now I think we should delete. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fun88[edit]

Fun88 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Eight year old page that still has no references asserting notability. The page was created within two years of the company's founding by an account that still has content for the company on both its user and talk page. The only RS I can find are articles that discuss Fun88 sponsoring soccer teams, but articles on their on-field ads don't appear (at least to me) to show that the company is truly notable. Isingness (talk) 09:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:42, 12 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? 13:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ALPS The Bus[edit]

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

As per WP:ORG and WP:FAILORG. hueman1 (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, sources are mainly PRIMARY failing WP:ORGINDS, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or a Yellow Pages. HighKing++ 18:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Lacking coverage in reliable sources. Disclosure: the said company is based in and has a large presence in my home province. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres Pasalubong[edit]

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

As per WP:ORG and WP:FAILORG. hueman1 (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. No indications of why this company is deemed notable. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or a Yellow Pages. HighKing++ 18:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Star Bus Transit[edit]

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

As per WP:ORG and WP:FAILORG. hueman1 (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor Express[edit]

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

As per WP:ORG and WP:FAILORG. hueman1 (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or a Yellow Pages. HighKing++ 18:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bogdanoff[edit]

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

I cannot find enough Rs to establish GNG. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Al of the sources related to giclee printing are useless. Bogdanoff might have a claim to developing a novel technique (although I doubt it) but unless we have some coverage if that, it doesn't help much. His notability hinges on whether we consider Art Galleries and Artists of the South http://www.agasart.com/, Art Business News http://artbusinessnews.com/, Bon Vivant http://www.bonvivant-mag.com (maybe?) and "Destination For Men" (I can't even find that as a magazine) are reliable sources and whether the claims in the article can be verified by those sources. I don't think so.--Vexations (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Colas[edit]

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

1RU at a national pageant ---> non-notable. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Shouldn't be deleted because she's the representative for France at Miss Universe now, not just a first-runner up. --ThatWikipediaEditor (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable within her discipline. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 00:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete did not even win the beauty contest she was in, she was runner up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus even after two relists .
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 10:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While this result may well be biased by the lack of English-language sources, there's good consensus here to delete. The two people arguing to keep are mostly saying, With 5000 seats, it must be notable, but that's not an argument which convinced the other discussants. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monastir Indoor Sports Hall[edit]

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

This article's subject may not be notable per the guidelines at WP:NBUILD. Google searching "Monastir Indoor Sports Hall" did not return any significant coverage of the subject. It appears to have been nominated for deletion under WP:PROD under a different article name, was blocked by the creator, and later moved for unrelated reasons. The editor who created the article has since retired.

Because the subject is located in a non-English-speaking country, a lack of readily available articles in English may be a symptom of WP:WORLDVIEW as opposed to a lack of notability, so despite nominating this article for deletion, I'd particularly invite arguments for keep, especially if reliable sources can be found in other languages. Rosguilltalk 05:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 00:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we need an Arabic speaker. A quick search with the name translated into Arabic gives 110,000 hits, which might or might not prove something. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely possible for there to be lots of trivial coverage because it's the stadium of a more notable handball team. Unfortunately, a lot of the search results didn't allow me to copy the text in order to translate it. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Not an Arabic speaker but I think WP:WORLDVIEW comes into play. If this were in an English-speaking a country a stadium with seating capacity for 5000 with regular tenants would almost certainly merit inclusion.Citing (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist . Looks like Arabic sources cannot be assessed without an Arabic speaker .
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 10:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

O3plus[edit]

O3plus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason and because they seem to be duplicate articles:

O3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWLAs per the comment by User:Bkonrad thanks, I should have checked out the history. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

fails WP:NORG. The sources are product placement stuff in lists. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search. Looks like a WP:UPE Dom from Paris (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. promotional , and borderline notable at best. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recently created O3 page overwrote a valid disambiguation page. I have restored the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 09:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Kropschot[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fghter - not even close to meeting WP:NMMA with only a single pro fight in an organisation that isn't even second tier. PRehse (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [stricken per my comment below], because this latest comes across, in context which the deletion nominator ignores or is unaware of, as completely insane on the part of Wikipedia editors bent inexplicably upon deletion, in how they come across to the article creator (who is a new-ish editor with about 50 edits, and who appears to be a fan of Joseph Kropschot) and to myself (a Wikipedia editor with no previous experience on MMA articles, but with >10,000 articles created and >100,000 articles edited, if I recall correctly from counter pages that used to exist). I will explain further later as necessary about how this appears insane. But for now take a look at creator's Talk page, at Talk page of article, at previous AFD, at talk page of recent speedy delete, at the just-concluded deletion review. It was closed with note "restored by deleting admin. Can be taken to AfD again by any interested party", but that does not mean that someone has to take it to AfD again, particularly not without reviewing why the extraordinary occurrence of a deletion review leading to an article restoration happened.
The creator was advised in the first AFD a year ago that the article then would be deleted because the subject was an amateur. They waited until beyond when the subject had a pro bout and met the communicated standard. Now this new deletion nomination asserts the subject is "not even close" with only a single pro fight. Well, that is not valid as an argument, or soon will not be, because as has been noted, the subject is up for their second pro bout this weekend. During the course of this AFD it is guaranteed that the basis for the AFD will be be countered. And it is possible that new coverage of this 2nd bout will establish by wp:GNG that the subject is notable (and note, article creator, that GNG policy trumps any other guideline). Upon review of the notability guideline linked from wp:NMMA, now I do see a section, never yet alluded to in any communication with respect to this subject, that there is an arbitrary criteria that 3 pro bouts means a MMA person is notable. Well, that is evidence of Wikipedia insanity, IMHO, too, because what is the magic about 3? What, do you think a 23 year old MMA fighter undefeated as an amateur, with an amateur championship belt (which Kropschot has) and with 2 pro wins (which Kropchot might have by this weekend), say, is not going to get a third pro bout? And, why the hell didn't any of the multiple editors who are coming across as deletion-crazy to me now, why didn't any of them say this. They just have said, like here, without explaining, that the topic is obviously-to-them not notable. Okay, why the insansity, perhaps it is to protect innocent potential BLP subjects from harm somehow? Well, what is harmful? The article could use inline referencing to support the specific facts it puts forth, but what does the article say that could be construed as harmful? That the subject was born in San Ramon, California? That the subject is about 23 years old? Of course the subject was born some time and somewhere. Come on people, you are coming across as insane. It would be okay to tag the article for reference improvements. But the overall remedy is to drop this and for y'all collectively to go away, seriously. Get a life, Wikipedia editors. Drop this madness. --Doncram (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was quite a polemic, but I don't see your point. There is no significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and he needs 3 top tier professional fights, not 3 professional fights. I suggest you read WP:NMMA more carefully. Papaursa (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned WP:NMMA in my discussions with them. And you can see me as a deletionist, but these are the policies of the project. If you wish for individual articles like this to be kept, you need to advocate for change on the standard, not just ask for exceptions to it. Also you can't predict that GNG can be satisfied at any point in time. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the purpose of an encyclopedia is to have articles on people who are notable, not to have articles on people who may at some future point become notable. Kropschot is clearly in the latter category and not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and he has no top tier MMA fights (and only 1 pro fight) to meet WP:NMMA. He's a very long way from showing notability as an MMA fighter. Papaursa (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NMMA. Very poorly sourced article. SportingFlyer talk 07:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with John Pack Lambert's summary. This encylopedia welcomes bios of people who are notable, not so much those who might become notable. I'm the admin who deleted it the second time, participated in the deletion review (linked above in Doncram's post), and undeleted it per that discussion: my opinion counts no more (and no less) than anyone else's. – Athaenara ✉ 09:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails the most basic requirements of GNG if nothing else, notwithstanding the admirable screed above. Quite possible a matter of, in his own way, WP:TOOSOON, as if his career maintains trajectory he will undoubtedly achieve Wikinobility in the senior leagues. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JPL & Papaursa. The big failure of NMMA, and then subsequently of GNG shows this is not ready to be a BLP, especially with the high standards of sourcing required. The sources are merely mentions/statistics or opinion pieces, with maybe one with a small bit of information. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thank you to all who have commented; I am happy you enjoyed my "polemic"/"screed", or at least that you took my view seriously. I am maybe sorry for coming across that way, including my throwing around the word "insane". I hope I was clear that my use of that term was about how the Wikipedia processes and rules could be seen by a relative outsider, and I certainly did not mean to apply the adjective to any editor here (and I don't think anyone has taken it that way, either). Anyhow, I came to this topic from seeing what I perceived to be a very unfair/inappropriate process going on, the deletion review, which seemed to me to be bulldozing over a newish user. I said at the deletion review that I thought article re-creation would be better, perhaps with a new AFD happening, and I appreciate Athaenara's willingness to go along with that. At deletion review, one is not supposed to go into the notability of the topic, but rather only discuss the validity of the deletion action given what info was available from discussion at the administrator's Talk page or anywhere else. (Most often deletion review is about a close of an AFD given what was said in the AFD discussion, but there was no recent AFD here.) I appreciate there has been more direct discussion of the notability of Kropschot, here.
Upon further review of wp:NMMA, and given that I am not right now able to find any substantial coverage of the fight that was supposed to have taken place this last weekend, I do concede that the notability of the topic is not established. Some points that seem to matter is that there seems to have been extensive previous discussion setting up the NMMA standard, and that the standard highlights quality levels of MMA organizations (and Kropshot does not seem to be in the higher quality level), and that 3 pro bouts in the higher level seem to be required, not just one pro bout at any level. I note these points for reference to the editor who created the article and who seemed to think the process was unfair, referencing the previous AFD's guidance.
I don't object to this being closed "Delete" or even "Snow Delete" now, against my solitary-looking !vote above. Which I guess I should strike, in this edit. --Doncram (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. G4 by RHaworth; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PrettyLitter (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prettylitter[edit]

AfDs for this article:


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

I do not believe this product meets WP:GNG nor does the company of the same name meet WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage of either in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the product. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tagged the article for speedy deletion under G4. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harrish Sairaman[edit]

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

fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. The sources are 1 an unsigned puff piece 2 a passing mention 3 a puff piece from a web site that provides "the latest breaking news and videos straight from the world of the weird and wonderful". 4 a piece written by the subject, 5 affiliated 6 a piece written by the subject 7 affiliated. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Mumbai Mirror ref is a throw-away reference and the rest seem of dubious reliability at best. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:A7, possible WP:G3. There is no obvious indication that this record label, or the people alleged to have run it, actually existed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CHI Records[edit]

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

No references. Doesnt seem to exist any more. Not obviously notable Rathfelder (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't verify that it ever existed, it seems unlikely. Peter James (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: as this article has no claim of importance of the subject. Toddst1 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ultimately I find the delete opinions more convincing, particularly Chrissymad's analysis of the sources present in the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elsinore (band)[edit]

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

This was inexplicably kept in 2010 but I see no evidence it actually meets inclusion criteria. The most significant source was from the AV club but aside from that everything appears to be hyper local and they don't appear to have charted. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NBAND. The AV Club link comes up as a 404, and there is no real information in the article past the lede. Bkissin (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those arguments justifies deletion. --Michig (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my reason for nominating had nothing to do with the 404 as it was easily available via archived versions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for the rest, this is exactly why I nommed it - the huffpo piece is an interview in a blog, as are most of the rest or hyper local blogs. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the sources listed above are clearly neither blogs nor 'hyper local'. --Michig (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect, Michig. This, aside from two sentences is an interview, this is a blog, blog, two sentences in a blog, announcement, hyper local show listing/interview, hyper local. And to be honest, as far as the Demig reviews go, I'm not convinced that the same person reviewing a band 5 times (Mark Demig) constitutes the multiple sources covering it required. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two of Mark Deming's reviews among the 14 sources listed, not five as you state. There are also two reviews from PopMatters and one from Exclaim!. As for the blogs, these are newspaper staff blogs, and are reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs by nature are not useful for establishing notability since they are not subject to the same editorial oversight. Also you're not addressing the fact that they are hyper local. Riverfront Times is local and not significant. As far as the reviews, All of the reviews and biogs on AllMusic are written by the same person and the two popmatters reviews are 3 sentences each. Pastemagazine is a blog. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Allmusic bio and reviews are significant coverage in a reliable source. The PopMatters reviews may be fairly brief but still valid. The Exclaim! review is significant coverage in a reliable source. Paste magazine is not a blog. If newspapers and magazines publish 'blog' posts by their staff on the newspaper/magazine website, we should assume that they are happy that they are of sufficient quality, i.e. they do have sufficient editorial oversight. All newspapers are local - if the coverage was all local to the band there might be an argument for not treating it as evidence of notability, but it isn't. --Michig (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean that Paste is not a magazine in and of itself but that particular piece is a blog as you can clearly see if you click the link. None of this amounts to the required in depth coverage. And a piece that is almost entirely aside from 2 sentences an interview is not independent coverage.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Michig's refs evidence notability. Article needs to be built up, not deleted. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the amount of information about this band, it is unfortunate that this article has remained in the state that it's in since the first Deletion discussion 8 years ago. Michig, you seem to know a lot about this band, I invite you to incorporate the sources you found into the article so that this doesn't happen again. Bkissin (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bkissin half of those sources are problematic as they're blogs or typical local paper "this show is happening" announcements. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bkissin NO BLACKMAIL! No "improve this article, or we'll kill it." I invite you to exclude yourself from all deletion discussions. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hobbes Goodyear, let's remember to WP:AGF here and watch how we interact with other users. Claims of "blackmail" are ridiculous. I was noting that this is a three-sentence article that has twice survived Deletion discussions. In that time none of the 14 sources that Michig was able to find have been added to this article to bolster its notability and create an article that would in any way meet WP:NMUSIC. My suggestion was that if so many sources are able to be found on this band (despite the fact that Chrissymad has suggested they would largely not meet WP:RS for notability), then the information in those sources should be added to the prose of the article. Unless of course the articles brought up have nothing of substance in them, and are merely passing mentions of the band and therefore would not meet the Wiki standards for notability. Both you and Michig are strong supporters of keeping this article, go ahead and improve it. Bkissin (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bkissin, how about _you_ remember to WP:AGF? You vote to delete and challenge others to improve. This is bad behavior. Deletion discussions are not to be based on "improve, or else...". Until you understand this, I really think that WP would be better served if you avoided deletion discussions. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chrissymad, instead of nitpicking Michig's refs, howza about you use those cycles to engage in a bit moreWP:BEFORE before nominating? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hobbes Goodyear How about you stop with the personal attacks and ridiculous accusations? I did do before and I still agree with my nomination as well as my analysis of the sources. If you think my nomination was in bad faith, take it to ANI, otherwise chill out and stop attacking people for following guidelines and policy. Further, you're the only one asserting "or else" nonsense.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chrissymad, I do not think that your nomination was made in bad faith. I don't think that I have been "attacking people for following guidelines and policy". You clearly disagree with me, but given the statements made, I think that "nonsense" is a little harsh. Oh, well. I will try to "chill out". Thank you for your feedback. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the quantity of sources listed above, it's the quality of the sources that matters. When making an argument for keep, you don't need to WP:REFBOMB the AFD. Just pick out two sources that are reliable, significant, and independent. Chrissy has done a good job of analyzing the sources listed above and showing that they're not up to par. If someone can show that there are at least two high quality sources instead of making everyone sift through a refbomb, that would help. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the refs identified above are sufficient for this to pass WP:BASIC. Szzuk (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite claims to the contrary, I'm not seeing any high quality sources. All the sources appear to lack significant coverage, or are not from a reliable source (i.e. a blog etc). We need at least two sources that are significant, independent, AND reliable. Despite the ref-bomb above, this does not appear to be the case based on my perusal of them. I can't find anything better either, so have no choice but to !vote delete. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 16:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am not going to apologise for actually bothering to conduct a search for coverage and presenting what I found here, and I would also remind other editors that WP:GNG is not the only route to establishing notability. --Michig (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not asking you to apologise for doing a search, though I would have preferred a bit of sorting by quality. Whether Parasol Records qualifies as "one of the more important indie labels" is a bit debatable, but coverage in sources trumps any of the Subject Specific Notability Guidelines. While WP:NMUSIC states that topics that meet those criteria "may be notable", it does not create inherent notability, especially when we search and can't find adequate sourcing to meet the GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I dug up some minor sources, and actually listened to Yes Yes Yes. You can stream Nothing for Design on Amazon if you're curious. They're OK. They seem to be a band that was always just on the edge of success but didn't quite make it. If their URL hadn't expired, this would be a full keep. They have more recent musical and video output, but not much written about it that I can find.[[50]] [[51]] The Nate & Margaret movie I red-linked to looks just notable enough if someone wants to add the article. [[52]] [[53]] [[54]] 78% on Rotten Tomatoes FWIW [[55]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernadette Marshall[edit]

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

an apparent autobiography which fails the GNG Wolfson5 (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious autobiography with a dash of promotion for her company NB Graphics & Associates, which is not notable either. Subject does not meet [[WP:BASIC]]/[[WP:GNG]]. Sam Sailor 08:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speedy delete, actually--it's a pure advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Johnny & Associates#Trainees. Yunshui 雲水 08:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny's Jr.[edit]

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

This is just a combination of spam/fan trivia and a screaming BLP violation. Or a directory. Or something that doesn't pass the GNG. Take your pick. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Johnny & Associates#Trainees. Finding GNG-level coverage is not difficult. But that's not really the issue. Lists and tables are far easier than prose to translate and update for non-native speakers, so there are many articles like this in enwiki that have been brought over from jawiki by enthusiastic editors acting in good faith. Ordinarily this would be a strong candidate for WP:TNT. But after all the lists and tables and unsourced BLP material are deleted then what's left is the paragraph of info already in the main Johnny & Associates article. So, redirect there as a sensible alternative to deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I'm convinced the BLP issues (and indiscriminate tables of data issues) outweigh potential notability of this group separately from the main Johnny & Associates group/article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Johnny & Associates#Trainees as a categorized {{R from subtopic}} and {{R to section}} per above arguments. Sam Sailor 06:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Berdichevsky[edit]

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

Unsourced. Cannot find sources to establish notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are results for this name: [56] [57]. There seems to be a notable person called Leonid Opanasovych Berdychevsky whose dates are 1908 to 1944: [58]. That is not who our article is about. James500 (talk) 02:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find anything. Per some edits by the creator of the article, he's a painter. I can't find his work anywhere, no exhibitions, nothing.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Kpgjhpjm 01:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Dewey[edit]

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

Watercolor artist. I can't find independent SIGCOV to establish notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NewVantage Partners[edit]

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

PRODed this but didn't spot that it was PRODed before so it was declined - This article is spammy spam native advertising that does not meet WP:NCORP - sources are mentions and don't offer any independent analysis Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Do people actually do any researcher into companies before marketing them for deletion? If so they would see it more than meets the criteria for notability. That being said the article is over-cited, poorly cited missing key information and should be re-done. Freetheangels (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me expand on the promotional aspect - with phrases like "leader in Big Data strategy consulting and executive thought-leadership", and with an entire section devoted to their "Thought Leadership" - this is almost a G11 worthy article, and should be deleted on the basis of promotion even (not that it meets WP:NCORP either) Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick google search brings up significant coverage which means its notable by WP:GNG that being said should it remain on Wikipedia? Well if the writer who created the article cleaned it up because right now it a clear mess. Maybe in all fairness, this article should be made into a draft giving the writer time to make improvements. Freetheangels (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Freetheangels, please link the coverage; that coverage must satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, and I don't see sources that do; WP:N is also not the only factor for keeping an article, per WP:DEL14 promotional articles can also be deleted per WP:NOTPROMO Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Beyond that, the article is entirely promotional, to the point of being G11 eligible. "Thought Leadership" section, really? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has a certain smell of UPE and does not meet NCORP. Sam Sailor 15:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. No basis for notability. --Bejnar (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 23:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FlashGot[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. The article contains unreliable sources, and the subject gains only passing mentions in reliable sources and literature. Previously PRODded but declined. wumbolo ^^^ 13:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (changed per below) Merge to List of Firefox extensions - we have two computer industry sources, but not enough depth. If more are uncovered here consider this a Keep. Widefox; talk 01:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Due to controversies on a set of articles of which this is one can I respectively suggest admins only close this and a full 168 hours is allowed before relist and non-admins carefully consider before re-listing. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep two reliable paper sources plus a bunch of web citations should be enough for this type of article. Additionally, deleting this article now has an element of kicking someone when he is down. Due to no fault of his own, the author of Flashgot (Giorgio Maone) is currently not maintaining it and it is incompatible with current Firefox. Reason is that Maone is also the principal author of the extremely popular NoScript, and he is putting all his resources into getting NoScript running on the new Firefox API. Until then, Flashgot is left in temporary unmaintained state, and it is unlikely to generate any more press coverage. We should wait with the delisting until it is clear if Maone (or someone else, it is GPL after all) picks up Flashgot and ports it to the new Firefox API or if it is left dead for good. Wefa (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added five more reviews, making seven RS, at least two are OK for notability, so more than GNG. Ping only participant who hasn't !voted User:Djm-leighpark. Widefox; talk 23:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "At least two" is not "more than GNG". wumbolo ^^^ 11:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In what way? See WP:GNG There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected (emphasis own). Widefox; talk 11:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you think 2 > "multiple", then you also think 1 = "multiple", which is wrong. wumbolo ^^^ 13:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except that's a straw man. See wikt:multiple More than one. 2>1. (and by "more than GNG", it's clearly short for "more than needed by GNG" ie satisfied GNG, i.e. (2 to 7) > 1 if we're being precise, not that I've ever seen that at AfD) I note that's the same reasoning as User:Wefa. Widefox; talk 13:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thankyou Wirefox for you good faith ping ... while I am tracking this AfD the ping may be seen as a vote-stacking inappropriate WP:CANVAS and it is probably best I do not vote on this AfD. 04:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 04:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Just to endorse... You're OK, I'm OK per WP:VOTESTACK). Widefox; talk 09:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Another {{cite book}} added, sourcing is sufficient to meet GNG. Sam Sailor 14:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Leggett Chase[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE. While the subject has appeared in several notable productions, they do not appear to have had important roles, and the claim in the lead that the subject had starring roles in Law & Order and 30 Rock appears to be false. signed, Rosguilltalk 22:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 01:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Further to WP:NEXIST, the actress passes the WP:GNG for significant coverage in her lead role in Queen of Hearts. Chase played Diana in that show. She is covered also in other roles. I've added some references to the article. Will format these soon. gidonb (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also passes WP:NACTOR for significant roles in multiple television shows and musical productions. See details in the improved article. gidonb (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to WP:NACTOR, she needs to have multiple significant roles to be considered notable and I have seen only one of it here (Television roles are all minor too). References are also poor, one is a review of Queen of Hearts, one is an article locked behind a log-in. And the others are biographical which do not establish notability. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Passes WP:NACTOR per "significant roles in multiple stage performances" and most definitely passes the WP:GNG per "significant coverage in reliable sources." I took the Times quote out from behind the pay wall via Google Books. Time is an important magazine isn't it? Especially in the previous millennium. There is no quality problem with the prime references (the first nine) that clearly pull the actress across the GNG line. gidonb (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I see numerous supporting and minor roles, and an occasional starring role in regional theater, but nothing that satisfies WP:NACTOR's requirements of multiple significant roles. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete talent and longevity alone do not meet the notability requirements for actors. See WP:NACTOR for the need for coverage and not just mentions. Needs more significant coverage to meet the guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Single Integrated Operational Plan. Yunshui 雲水 08:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency War Order[edit]

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

The content should be presumed to be dubious / falsified. Created by Special:Contributions/OberRanks currently site-banned for fabricating content and sources. For specific issues with the article, please see: User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise/OberRanks#Emergency_War_Order. For more info, please see ANI:OberRanks and fabricated sources. Delete per WP:TNT. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have no objection to delete & redirect as suggested below. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (delete content) to Single Integrated Operational Plan. As might be seen in a BEFORE (e.g. [60][61]) - this term is used and is a plausible search term, and would seem to pass GNG in my view. However, with the state of the article (and the well developed SIOP) - a redirect is in order. Icewhiz (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then Redirect. I think the current contents need to be deleted as probably fabricated. But then the creation of a redirect to Single Integrated Operational Plan seems sensible. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note at the earlier deletion nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emergency War Order, article creator OberRanks said he "mainly relied on my military knowledge and the information from the external link which is now deactivated". Even for an honest editor, relying on one's own military knowledge is unacceptable as sourcing, but for OberRanks we've repeatedly seen that what that really means is he made it up. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Vachiralai Chiangmai United F.C.[edit]

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

Fails WP:FOOTYN team has not yet played a single match and fails WP:GNG the sources are routine reports in a local paper about the forming of this university team a scan of an administratif document and the facebook page for the team. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At current there are no decent sources in the article and the page currently fails basic WP:GNG guidelines. Govvy (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_September_26&oldid=1142614980"