Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 5 September 7 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peugeot Riifter[edit]

Peugeot Riifter (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)

Unnecessary article and typo in title. The Peugeot Rifter along with it previous generation are already included in the Citroen Berlingo article since it a rebadge. As well as information on this article are all copied from the Citroen Berlingo article. Vauxford (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised after nominated this article, the person who created it have been blocked so I'm not sure what to do next. --Vauxford (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems suspicious this was created at a typo, which is fairly often done by out-of-compliance-with-policy editors bent on getting promotional or otherwise bad stuff into Wikipedia. Note the non-typo Peugeot Rifter is a redirect, created back in February 2018‎, to Citroën Berlingo. Seems to me that this is not a plausible typo needing a redirect. --Doncram (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since this is a blatantly, all-the-way bad concoction of text, masquerading as a Wikipedia article. -The Gnome (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article duplicates content found elsewhere. Also something about this article is just off. I get the feeling that its creator had some purpose in mind for it that is not inline with Wikipedia's mission. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 13:54, 13 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. North America1000 05:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Śpiewajmy razem. All Together Now[edit]

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

Notability not established, WP:TOOSOON. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The WP:TOOSOON train has already left the station as this show has already been heavily reported on and is confirmed to start on 5 September.[1]. The essay (not policy or guideline) WP:TOOSOON is about topics that have not yet had in-depth coverage as this topic has or for films that have not been confirmed as gone into production. Obviously this has already been in production. --Oakshade (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additionally a request to specify notability-providing sources, if !voting Keep
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously a major Polish TV show that has now aired. Plenty of coverage found, including [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Coverage will clearly continue with further episodes. --Michig (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above discovery of the sources. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MapSGV (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now that it airs, WP:Crystalball and WP:TooSoon no longer applies. Also per Michig. Keep. JC7V-constructive zone 17:44, 11 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zena Edosomwan[edit]

Zena Edosomwan (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)

Although the information herein is verifiable, I'm not seeing any non-trivial mention in reliable secondary sources, which are essential to a BLP. I've avoided a speedy deletion or PROD as my location in China may have prevented me from seeing a source which might confer notability, but in my opinion this living person probably doesn't merit an entry in the encyclopedia. Edaham (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Edaham (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting you say you are in China, since Edosomwan has done some voluteer trips there. Anyway, there seem to be enough sources to meet GNG, such as [7] [8] [9] and two Boston Herald articles which I unfortunately cannot access. The claims to notability are fairly weak though. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comfortably meets WP:GNG. Runningibis (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can go either way on this one. I added another source with a lot of talk about him from Deadspin.—Bagumba (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given split on suitability of sources. Particular request for anyone who can access ome of the potentially helpful sources, given the multiple reasons for inaccessibility noted above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Quick search also finds [10] [11]. Bakazaka (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per plethora of sources, such as those offered by Editorofthewiki and others, above. Subject is both a businessman and a former basketball player. -The Gnome (talk) 13:04, 13 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. per WP:SNOW and WP:HEY. Consensus is that the article now meets WP:GNG (non-admin closure) DBigXrayᗙ 12:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandwich Fair[edit]

Sandwich Fair (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)

Unreferenced and unloved, but adequately covered (a mention) in the town's article, Sandwich, New Hampshire. Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oh, WP:HEY, I ran a couple of searches, added a couple of sources, it's been covered in the New Hampshire and Boston papers for over a century now. I think we have space for this fair that's been held every year since 1909. Article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Eddaido (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would ask users to have a look at the altered form, as well as a specific reminder that all !votes need justifications to be valid.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I was hoping this was going to be a celebration of hoagies, grinders, PBJs, and grilled cheese, since I've spent some time not far from there and had never heard of Sandwich, NH. Ah well. There look to be some decent sources about it available online, and given it's been going on for a century, it's pretty likely there's more. Not a clear-cut GNG win, but there's enough, I think, to justify keeping. I've removed a big block of unsourced promotional text about the specifics of the 4-H's involvement. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Appears to meet WP:GNG / WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:AUD having received regional level, independent news coverage that appears to be significant. My !vote has the caveat of "appears" stated because I am unable to access the sources that were added to the article after the deletion nomination, as they are on ProQuest. North America1000 05:56, 13 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Southeastern Collegiate Cyber Defense Competition[edit]

Southeastern Collegiate Cyber Defense Competition (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)

PROD declined by IP editor. This qualifying competition is not notable. wumbolo ^^^ 08:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:53, 13 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. – Joe (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard de Morville (Conquest)[edit]

Richard de Morville (Conquest) (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 individual only known from witnessing a small number of donations. I recently removed a confused and uncited bit about him often being given the wrong name. The remainder was a direct quote from the one cited source which I have paraphrased. It basically provides a lot of context written about the family (not the subject) and one passing reference to the notable Constable being perhaps son of this guy named Richard found in a few charters. There are other sources in the References section but they make no contribution to the three sentences of text, and without a page number who knows what they are supposed to be documenting? WP:GNG, WP:NOTGENEALOGY Agricolae (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nobility, which implies the possession of land and the political power that went with it. It is necessary to search for Ricardo as well as Richard, "of" as well as de, and Moreville, Moreuille, Moreuil, Morevill, Morevil, Morvil, Moruil etc etc etc. The books, such as this one [12], which appears to mention "Richard de Moreville" on nine pages, are available in snippet view and libraries. I suggest actually looking at them, in hard copy if need be. James500 (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is based on two flawed premises. First, we don't actually know that the subject owned any land or had any political power, only that his speculated son did. Second, there was a much more famous Richard de Morville (the son of Hugh de Morville, Constable of Scotland, speculated to have been son of the subject of the article here, Richard de Morville (Conquest)). Thus a simple Google search for Richard de Morville will tell us nothing of the notability of this specific Richard de Morville, amidst the other. In the source you specifically link to, most references appear to be to this famous (perhaps-)grandson. Of the subject, it says, in a footnote no less, "It further seems probable that the father of William and Hugh I de Morville was the Richard de Morville who witnessed charters of Richard de Redvers for Montebourg and the church of St. Mary in the castle of Nehou in the early twelfth century." That is not an indication of notability, when all that can be said is that he witnessed a few documents and he may be the father of a notable person. Agricolae (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- An individual known only from having witnessed a few charters is clearly NN. I would not object to a merge/redirect to a more prominent relative. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hugh de Morville, Constable of Scotland would be the obvious target, but that page already has the sentence "His parentage is unclear, but according to Barrow his father was probably Richard de Morville who in the early twelfth century witnessed charters made by Richard de Redvers relating to Montebourg and the church of St. Mary in the castle of Néhou" - it effectively has the entire content of this article already incorporated, while the page name here, Richard de Morville (Conquest), with its incorporated disambiguation, is not an obvious search term needing a redirect. Agricolae (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Agricolae: But doesn't that actually argue for redirecting to the other article? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no. There is no point in having a redirect from the namespace "Richard de Morville (Conquest)" because this is not by any stretch of the imagination a search term or syntax anyone would use who might be interested in this man. Just one of the reasons being that there is no evidence this man had anything to do with the Conquest, nor has anyone claimed such outside of this Wikipedia page. There is a long story about how this arose, but the fact is, he is only known from witnessing those grants ca. 1100, and indeed if he really was father of Hugh, d. 1160, he was at least a generation younger than the Conquest men. Were this AfD to end in Keep, the page would need to be renamed anyhow, as the namespace is completely invalid. Under other circumstances I might say it wouldn't hurt to have a redirect simply from Richard de Morville to the Hugh, Constable page, but we already have a page entitled Richard de Morville that points to the son of Constable Hugh, and that is much, much more likely to be the desired target of someone coming here interested in a Richard de Morville. The only way I see around this would be to create Richard de Morville (disambiguation) that includes a line reading:
That being said, I can't stress enough how utterly obscure this person is. There is almost zero chance anyone is going to come to Wikipedia looking for this man without first reading of his existence on Hugh's page, such that we need to take elaborate steps to ensure that they will be led to Hugh's page. (And it perhaps should also be mentioned that the relationship to Hugh is one scholar's guess, not shared, for example, by Keats-Rohan writing in 2002.) Agricolae (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have lists like List of Man'yōshū poets for people whose names are mentioned in historical chronicles but about whom we know nothing or next to nothing. (Actually every single entry on List of Man'yōshū poets probably is more likely to meet GNG than this, as we actually have at least 31 syllabic units of poetry composed by all of them that have survived into the modern era.) James's comment is based more on his personal philosophy of "keepism" than on a careful reading of sources, as demonstrated by Agricolae's response. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, then redirect to Hugh de Morville, Constable of Scotland. And I just noticed that, per the specific wording of the first sentence of Srnec (talk · contribs)'s comment below, this page technically meets WP:A7, which makes James's comment above all the more outrageous when one considers how experienced he is in article deletion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You must've meant "in article retention." -The Gnome (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article has to demonstrate notability, which it does not. Redundant. Hugh de Morville, Constable of Scotland contains the same information already. Srnec (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. An article does not have to demonstrate notability. That is one of the arguments to avoid (ATA, ASSERTN), and NRVE says that notability depends on the existence of sources, not their citation in the article. Failure to assert notability is not a grounds for speedy deletion. A7 actually requires an article to assert significance or importance, which is a lower standard than notability. An assertion that he is a member of the nobility clears A7. In fact an assertion that he lived before the introduction of printing, and we know his name, clears A7. See for example User:Bearian/Standards#Notability of persons in premodern times and the precedent cited there. Further, I don't understand why a person would be witnessing a charter of that type in that day and age if they were not important. James500 (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian's personal opinions are not policy, and indeed are hard to square with actual policy. We do not have, nor should we have, an article on Some Guy Named Leofric (ca. 1164), who happened to witness one document about about whom we know nothing more. As to who would witness a monastic donation, they could simply be a relative of the grantor, or a vassal, or a hunting buddy, or the local parish priest, or a monk at the monastery receiving the grant, or a lay brother there, . . . . There is no basis whatsoever for concluding what the precise role or status was of someone known only as a name in a witness list, unless it is made explicit in the document. Agricolae (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have altered my rationale. I do not agree with Hijiri88 that the article meets a CSD because, as James500 correctly notes, "notability depends on the existence of sources, not their citation in the article". An article has to demonstrate notability eventually, but it is true that a one-line stub (i.e. "Waltheof was an Anglo-Saxon nobleman") should not be deleted speedily. Rather the article should be deleted as redundant to Hugh's article. If there is significant coverage in reliable sources it can be recreated later. As of now, though, the article serves no use and no evidence of RS for expanding it has been provided. That he signed a charter demonstrates a certain amount of importance in his day, but it does not signify notability by our standards since there are many individuals known to us only as names at the end of charters and there is nothing more to be said about them. Srnec (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point of my argument. I think the page should be deleted and redirected as redundant (same as you) but I think CSD also applies, and that has nothing to do with "the existence of sources, not their citation in the article" -- if the article doesn't make a claim to notability, it can be speedy deleted, as long as it falls within one of a number of categories that are quite poorly defined but, ironically, definitely cover this article. (Note that the closing admin took my side in that debate, and I personally think my interpretation of the applicability of A7 was weaker than it is here. But it doesn't matter, because we actually agree on what to do with the page in this case, and this AFD is hours away from having been open, with effectively unanimous consensus, for a full seven days, so while it sucks that speedy deletion didn't happen by default, it won't ultimately make a difference.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and Agricolae's subsequent, detailed, and strong arguments, as above. -The Gnome (talk) 13:13, 13 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. Overwhelming Keep Consensus. WP:SNOW Keep. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88(talk) 00:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce K. Ferguson[edit]

Bruce K. Ferguson (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)

Reads as a biography. Cannot find anything of note except for a couple of textbooks. No secondary sources found intelati/talk 21:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have time for a deep dive today, but it appears that Ferguson held a named chair up until his retirement in 2015 [13], being Franklin Professor of Landscape Architecture. In addition, he was elected a Fellow of the American Society of Landscape Architects in 1994 (verifiable through [14]). This suggests a pass of WP:PROF#C5 and WP:PROF#C3. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the endowed professorship takes him past WP:PROF. if you drop the "K" and search with keywords, news articles cite him as an expert on designing landscapes using porous concrete or paving blocks in paved areas to improve drainage and prevent flooding, and on channeling runoff from parking areas and streets through natural ecosystems containing bacteria that eat oils and chemicals that otherwise contaminate streams and rivers. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per XOR'easter and E.M.Gregory. Satisfies WP:PROF. James500 (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: meets WP:PROF; I've removed the heavily promotional section, preserving it on the article's Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the recognition (two society fellows and a couple of other awards) now sourced in the article is enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to easily meet WP:NPROF. Papaursa (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This[15] source is adequate enough for passing GNG. Excelse (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This should be a warning to everyone to avoid AfDs on their first week back. Time for WP:SNOW?-intelatitalk 07:51, 11 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Investor times[edit]

Investor times (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)

Newspaper fails WP:NME. Dewritech (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:33, 30 August 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? 21:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could barely find even unreliable sources about this thing even existing, let alone being notable. Given how difficult it was to even find the website doing a google search, there's a pretty decent chance this article was created to make the site bump up in search rankings... cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cymru lass. Their own website says basically nothing about them, and I've found nothing else. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on account of lack of sources, more than anything, which would support the subject's notability. The chilling dearth of text is not an issue. -The Gnome (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Previously deleted 2018-06-11 pursuant to A7 under the correctly capitalized title Investor Times. I doubt this is a newspaper in the old-fashioned sense of the word, but I do not know ... I can virtually not find any reliable sources. Fails GNG. Sam Sailor 00:06, 14 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 Milk Bar (bakery). Selective merge of sourced material only. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karlie's Kookies[edit]

Karlie's Kookies (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. Delete or merge to Milk Bar (bakery). Geoff | Who, me? 21:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:05, 7 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 1700s in philosophy or the equivalent (yes, I know that's a redlink at present). There is strong consensus here that a "[YEAR] in philosophy" article is untenable. Vanamonde (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1700 in philosophy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    1700 in philosophy (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:NOTABILITY and has no events substantial enough to warrant an article here. There haven't been any constructive edits to improve or build the article since 2013. Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 20:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Merge and Redirect - I'm normally all for "X decade/year/century in Y topic" articles as they really help contextualize the timelines of certain fields, but really only if there's actually something to put in the articles. I feel like there might be a rationale for a 1700s in philosophy, but definitely not so specific in this case. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cymru.lass: There is something in the article, specifically the publication in 1700 of Mary Astell's, "Some Reflections Upon Marriage." [16]. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Tornheim: yes, there is one thing. That's really not enough for a whole article. The topic would be better as a section in an article on the century as a whole in philosophy. One sentence fragment on a publication that does not even have an article and a template does not an article make. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The List of years in philosophy is organized by individual years rather than entire centuries. There are far too many things going on in philosophy to organize by an entire century. Organization by decade might be reasonable, but that would take a huge reorganization. Assuming the publication of the book is notable--I'm not sure it is--then for organizational purposes it should go in the individual year that is appropriate, and should not be excluded simply because nothing else happened in that year. If you feel that the publication is non-notable, we can check for sources on that. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Having studied philosophy, I find a shocking dearth of entries in List of years in philosophy for everything in the Middle Ages and Antiquity. This page gives the completely misleading impression that most important philosophy occurred after 1900. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure about those dates. I suspect that you might be able to find enough material for yearly articles into the late nineteenth century, and decade articles into the late eighteenth. Or further. It all depends on the amount of publishing going on at the time, which is always increasing. The most obvious test would probably be the presence of contemporary philosophy periodicals. If you have those, you can likely have yearly articles for that period. I am not sure when they started, but these sources claim that the first in Britain was in 1876 [17] [18]. It may be advisable to show caution in merging later timelines, especially after 1876, as you might end up having to unmerge them later. James500 (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @James500: I defer to your knowledge of the subject. Sounds like you have even more experience with Philosophy than I do despite having taken numerous courses in it. Can you make a specific proposal? I will likely go along with it based on your comments here, if it sounds reasonable. I'm not clear on what exactly you want the final action to be. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed my !vote based on recent changes to List of years in philosophy to which I approve. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no list containing a single item is worth having, all the more so when that item is a redlinked book. Agricolae (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection to merging to a decade- or century-long list as per below. Agricolae (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. One entry does not make a notable list, support merging per decade or century if required. Ajf773 (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:POKEMON, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R this page and any other similar stub pages for 16XX in philosophy should be combined into 17th century in philosophy, which is certainly notable: [19]. While we are at it, combine any other centuries in philosophy. We have just had this nonsense with several other centuries, let's not have it with this one. James500 (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Every year before 1700 listed in List of years in philosophy, with the exception of 1649, has one or two events/births/deaths listed total and should definitely combined into their appropriate articles. Medieval philosophy, for example, already exists anyways. Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 03:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosalina2427: Do you agree with me that something is amiss that the article List of years in philosophy gives a false impression that nearly all philosophy occurred after 1900? Perhaps, the title should be renamed, List of years in philosophy after _____ or List of years in Modern Philosophy. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed in terms of the false impression. Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 22:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge probably 1700s in philosophy. We have been trying to abolish these minute categories, but they need merging not deletion. The problem here is that the article is a redlinked book supported by a link to the authoress. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but prefer 17th century in philosophy ("Strict Usage") or 18th century in philosophy ("General Usage") based on recent changes to List of years in philosophy and !vote following this one. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC) [revised 15:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC), 08:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)][reply]
    I agree. I have changed my !vote accordingly. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The 18th century began on 1 January 1701. This is because there is no year zero in the Gregorian calender which starts with 1AD. See eg [20] [21] [22]. Our own article 18th century follows this. James500 (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC) This is explained in more detail in Century. I am under the impression that all our century articles follow the convention that century X starts with year X01 not X00. James500 (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I wasn't aware of the two ways to classify year X00 in a Century or the bizarre mathematical nightmare of having no zero 0AD. I prefer "General Usage" affirmed by ISO_8601#Calendar_dates. However, since our articles on specific centuries (..., 17th century, 18th century, ...) follow the "Strict Usage", consistency suggests we follow the strict usage. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:19, 13 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. If we closed AfDs by wordcount, the deletes would comfortably have it. Otherwise, the discussants were evenly split on whether enough sources are available, and further discussion seems unlikely to reach a consensus. – Joe (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Iris Almeida-Côté[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Iris Almeida-Côté (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 subject of the article is a minor administrator, and the article is not of any noteworthiness or interest to general Wikipedia users.

    She ran (and lost by a landslide 45%) in a minor election (municipal councilor) which hardly qualifies her as a politician.

    Her biography reads as a self-serving CV and doesn't really offer much insight into her platforms, accomplishments etc. in these roles.

    Having a masters degree or even 2 is something many people have (some even hold multiple doctorates).

    She is currently involved in another election (CIRA) which is a minor administrative body somewhat regulating the .ca domain. Nevertheless, having a Wikipedia entry gives the appearance of notability which may unfairly bias the election.

    There are numerous unverifiable, broken citations.

    The article arbitrarily and artificially divides into a post 2006 section -presumably to give the illusion of credibility.

    Furthermore, the bodies that she is listed as having a leadership role in are also minor and themselves linked to contentious articles, for example: 1) Canada World Youth, is listed as having multiple issues, the article itself reading as almost a non-informative stub, 2) International Cooperation for Development and Solidarity which is itself classed as a stub. Furthermore, in the latter case, her name does not appear in any search characteristic of the organization's website and is essentially unverifiable by virtue of age. The current organizational chart does not even list her old position, and it certainly is not in the list of decision makers, so doubtful that she was in a "leadership role" as suggested. 3)The same applies for her position with PAC. The Globe & Mail article referenced is not findable through their website or any www archive, and citing the roles she played from it seems more like a job duty list on a resume than of use in this Wikipedia article. Her comments regarding Rwanda are larger and perhaps more fitting the relevancy of a Wikipedia article, however they too read more like an op ed piece and no consequence/outcome is given as a result of the comments. 4) Canadian Pensions and Benefits Institute, despite it's grandiose name is a not-for-profit that has as its article a stub. On the linked website, under past presidents for the time period 2006-9, she is listed as CEO simply reads "Jane Doe". There is no mention of her contributions on the website. 5) Her next endeavour, Canadian Society of Association Executives, is also stub-classed with no external link to verify (citation #9 fails). 6) Her next role is mis-cited (in #10) and is equally unverifiable per their website. 7) Citation #11 (next role) is equally broken.

    The rest of the roles/citations haven't been investigated yet, but the gist is sufficient; even if the handful of administrative roles she's had are correct, they do not reflect notability and are far too minor (the quotes being far too detailed) to be of broader relevance. This would be no different than citing anyone's CV and attributing quotes from them. The content of the quotes are non-controversial sound bytes that add very little in the way of discussion points. There is no comment of her worth as a person, or value of her career or contributions, but if we were to include every minor administrator who carries any secretarial role, Wikipedia would become overly bloated. Mellofellow (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Almeida-Côté has received credible national media coverage over a period of several years and has received significant recognition from Canadian academic and media institutions. The article itself is properly sourced. It's true that her defeat in a recent municipal election doesn't make her notable; neither does it nullify her notability. The fact that some of the organizations she once led don't have more than stub articles on Wikipedia isn't valid grounds to delete this article, and the fact that she's involved in a CIRA election is, really, neither here nor there. CJCurrie (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that she appears to have used "Iris Almeida" for many years. The first source in the article is a profile in the Montreal Gazette, and a search in gBooks in "Iris Almeida" brings up plausible-looking sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources such as major newspapers and book sources and therefore passes WP:Basic regards, Atlantic306 (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Has received coverage from the media, and the article is also well sourced. Knightrises10 (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete I'm really nervous about this one and will probably look into it more, but I can't find a single article on her in a before search that would make me think she passes WP:GNG with the exception of source #1. Source #1 exists and was a 14-sentence biography of her in the business section, so that's probably okay. Source #15 is not about her at all, just a passing mention. Most of the sources aren't linked, which scare me, and I don't see any which obviously jump out at me which cover her significantly from their title or text. All I see is a press release about her getting a new job. I'm not unhappy for someone to prove me wrong here, but I disagree this article is "properly sourced" at the moment. SportingFlyer talk 06:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Part of the issue here is that some of the sources used in this article were published before the web was really a thing, and many of them aren't generally available online now. This doesn't invalidate them as sources, although I understand that not everyone will be able to confirm them. (FWIW, I used two different academic search engines when I created this article). If anyone else is able to review the sources, the Globe and Mail, Montreal Gazette, and National Post entries are the most important ones. CJCurrie (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete To respond to a few points:
    "...received credible national media coverage..." the context is important; we have no idea how much of the articles she took up, whether or not they were fluff pieces, or featured on buried pages, or sponsored, and moreover if the news was highly local of interest to only a few.
    "...significant recognition from Canadian academic and media institutions."
    Significant is contested. A few institutions perhaps, but Canadian institutions feature tens of thousands -if not more- featurettes on many people including students. This does not go to significance.
    "...neither does it nullify her notability."
    I would say that it does. If the position in the election was of greater significance (e.g. mayor) I could see a defeat not nullifying it, however this is not the case. Essentially this becomes overcategorization where we include all candidate names for even minor roles (win or lose). Getting on a ballot is not an accomplishment and requires very little vetting.
    "...some of the organizations she once led don't have more than stub articles on Wikipedia isn't valid grounds..."
    It is most of the organizations. Strictly speaking yes, it is not valid grounds, but simply goes to show the magnitude/importance/relevance of the organizations. This is relevant to further show her coverage is for non-importance. If I was to create an article for myself and link it to organizations that are stubs, it would not give my article importance, though it gives the false appearance of credibility by virtue of number of alleged sources. Under criteria 8,"Notability (organizations and companies)" the same criteria should be used to show her alleged organizations have received significant coverage. Some have, some have not.
    "...involved in a CIRA election is, really, neither here nor there."
    It is relevant because of criteria 4.)"Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content". This qualifies as advertising given that there is an election. Furthermore, "Self-promotion and publicity:
    Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography,..." would back this up. All the other candidates (26!) do not have profiles though many of them are far more accomplished and as or more covered than she is. If we were to include them in wikipedia, that would add 26 more articles of little relevance, with 25 of them for non-winners.
    Criteria 8 (notability) requires "...significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time..."; (general notability guideline) requires, "...that no original research is needed to extract the content...", but plenty of searching under both her names was required and returned many failures; (Notability (people)) requires, "...the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be 'worthy of notice' or 'note' – that is, 'remarkable' or 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded' within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life," I don't see her as standing apart, remarkable or unique. there is very little biographical information and her 2 masters degrees are unverifiable without extensive, intrusive personal research, requiring her permission. I'm not sure if the author knows her or not, but even in a media source, it would be unlikely to have been verified. "The article title should define what the article is about. If there is enough valid content to fill an article about a person, then that person's name (such as "John Doe" or "Jane Doe") would be an appropriate title," clearly there is very little bio content -not nearly enough to fill/warrant an article.
    This article is ripe for deletion based on criteria, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 14.
    Mellofellow talk 19:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete

    Lots of issues raised. Following upon a few them I couldn't find credible sources. It's true that some of the sources also don't link anywhere. If we take out this material, there's not much of an article left. So my chief concerns are notability and poor/weak sourcing. I'd suggest a rewrite at the very least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manfredethom (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Maria Solheim (handball player, born 1979)[edit]

    Maria Solheim (handball player, born 1979) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Not sufficiently notable competitor of a predominantly amateur sport. Handball is nowhere near professional in Norway, where this player is from. Geschichte (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:19, 6 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Herbert Daughtry[edit]

    Herbert Daughtry (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 seem notable and nothing about his work or pastorship is presented in context that would seem to be encyclopedic. JesseRafe (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 03:27, 8 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Aadi Lakshmi[edit]

    Aadi Lakshmi (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 indication as to why this was deprodded, so Fails WP:NFILM, no sources here or to be found. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I can't find any sources on this either. This article seems to be written solely on the imdb source, which is not reliable. Fails WP:NFILM (not sure why this was considered controversial). Bradv 19:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I could only find one reasonable Aadhi Lakshmi Review the movie fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage and reviews in reliable media. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete because subject fails WP:NFILM. -The Gnome (talk) 13:54, 13 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Aadivaram Aadavallaku Selavu[edit]

    Aadivaram Aadavallaku Selavu (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)

    After a week of waiting, prod removed for absolutely no reason. No sources to be found, no coverage and film doesn't seem to have gone anywhere significant. Everything seems to be circular. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. For some unknown reason, this article was moved to an incorrect title in 2016. Nevertheless, a search for the correct title (Aadivaram Adavallaku Selavu) turns up no reliable sources, and no evidence that this meets any of the criteria specified in WP:NFILM. Bradv 19:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. There is no evidence of notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:NFILM. -The Gnome (talk) 13:47, 13 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 redirect to List of Marvel Comics demons#The Fear Lords. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Lurking Unknown[edit]

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

    Does not meet WP:GNG. Character appears 12 times according to Marvel Wikia, and its only incoming links are from lists and a disambiguation page. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:39, 6 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. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Bülent Öztürk[edit]

    Bülent Öztürk (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 film maker. The claim that he won EFA best short with Houses with small windows is false. It was nominated but did not win [23] Dom from Paris (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - It's fairly narrow but I believe criterion 3 or WP:DIRECTOR is met with the following reviews of Blue Silence: DeMorgen Review, Bruzz Review and Review 3. There are also some more the length of the third one (shorter than the other two), but I included it as an example of the shorter ones). In any case, I think the first two satisfy it Nosebagbear (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as seems to pass WP:DIRECTOR as shown above with the requisite reliable sources, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Nosebagbear. Satisfies WP:DIRECTOR with multiple reviews. Multiple nominations for awards. James500 (talk) 17:11, 6 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 redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: E#Ev Teel Urizen. The content is in the history if anyone wants to source and merge it. – Joe (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ev Teel Urizen[edit]

    Ev Teel Urizen (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)

    Character does not meet WP:GNG. Appears once, according to Marvel Wikia, and the only incoming article-space links are from a list and a disambiguation page. There is no point in keeping this. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If a redirect is the preferred option, I'd propose to List_of_Marvel_Comics_characters:_M#Mummudrai, rather than List of Marvel Comics characters: E, as the E page has no info about the character at present. However, given that Mummudrai is also unsourced, I still believe that delete is the best option.--Killer Moff (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - to those voting merge, please be aware that the character lists are not meant to be exhaustive. They're intended to provide information on characters who aren't independently notable but are significant to the fiction. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:29, 14 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. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Barry Mendel[edit]

    Barry Mendel (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 producer. Previously PRODed and redirected, then recreated. I see no reason why his name should be redirected to any particular film. Searches reveal only press releases, brief mentions, or interviews (not independent). NOTE: seems to meet WP:ANYBIO #1, per two Best Picture Oscar nominations (which also seem to apply to producers), and two Producer's Guild Best Picture Nominations. I changed my !vote to 'weak keep' below. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 01:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @IntoThinAir: With regards to this source, it is an article written by the subject himself and published on behalf of him. He was nominated for no Oscars, two films for which he was one of the producers for were nominated for an Oscar, (very far from meeting WP:ANYBIO). The Chicago tribune source is no good for establishing notability, as it is a brief mention and is basically just a quote by him about something else. As for the Variety source, it certainly seems quite a lot like a press release to me, and appears to be the sort of mildly promotional story that is planted/solicited by a publicist. Given that he is a producer, and basically represents his own company, independence of sources should really be considered in light of WP:ORGIND, which warns against this sort of churnalism. Happy to reconsider the nomination if better can be found, but this currently isn't it. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Insertcleverphrasehere: Thank you for the response. I noticed that the Wrap source was an interview, but it didn't seem to be entirely written by him per se- it seems like it's all either him responding to interview questions or the blurb at the start, the latter of which seems to have been written by the interviewer (Eric Estrin) rather than Mendel himself. I certainly acknowledge I was confused by the sentence "Twice nominated for Oscars, (“The Sixth Sense,” “Munich”), Mendel began agenting as a way to learn the business while figuring out his true path." This seems to mean that Mendel himself was nominated for an Oscar (not true, as you noted). I do agree there aren't many sources that cover Mendel in depth and are reliable and independent, so I may change my vote given that ANYBIO is apparently not met. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 02:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @IntoThinAir: Thanks for your response as well. I had seen the 'Wrap' source before I nominated, and agree that the "was nominated by two Oscars" bit confused me as well; but I suppose that this is just the way that producers probably speak about the awards that their films get. Though the Chicago Tribune source came up in my searches, I hadn't seen the variety one, so perhaps there is additional sourcing out there that we still haven't found. In fact for some reason it still doesn't come up even in targeted searches: [24]. While searching for it other sources did come up which indicate that he was nominated for a producer's award (but did not win): [25][26]. I'm not sure how high we would weight the Producers Guild of America Award for Best Theatrical Motion Picture against WP:ANYBIO, but it does appear that he has been nominated twice, once for "Bridesmaids" and once for "The Big Sick". If you think this should be sufficient, I'm willing to consider withdrawing the nomination. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @IntoThinAir: Well, I can't withdraw (per the delete !vote below), and I also noticed that WP:ANYBIO requires "several" nominations, and he has only received 2. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom producer.Emily Khine (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Notable film producer and winner of the Producers Guild of America Award for Best Theatrical Motion Picture. Meets GNG per above and this. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    First, he never won that award, was only nominated twice. Your source is a brief mention, so wouldn't support notability via the GNG. He has two nominations for the Producers Guild of America Award for Best Theatrical Motion Picture, a bit shy of the "several" required by WP:ANYBIO for a presumption of notability. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Via the mixed views. Additionally the use of multiple, several etc etc is the cause of endless notability disagreements (though the latter less so)
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete – Imdb isn't a reliable source; the other source is just a list. No notability established. Unless more sources can be added (and I can't find any), then delete. Redditaddict69 22:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I was able to locate a feature in a very small - probably hometown - paper, and an announcement (brief) that ran in a couple of papers in 1999 "Universal lures producer from Disney". So, he exists, but he's not notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC) withdraw. bowing to David Tornheim's sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per sources in Variety1, Variety2, Chicago Tribune, and discussion started by IntoThinAir. Meets both WP:BASIC and WP:FILMMAKER:
    3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
    In particular, he produced The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou established by the Tribune article.
    --David Tornheim (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Producers don't inherit notability from the works they produce, 'co-creating' is nebulous in that producers generally just organise people who actually do the creating, in any case there are a lot of 'co-creators' for films.. The first source you brought up contains a once sentence reference to Barry Mendel, because he shares a first name with some other 'Barrys'. That's about as far from significant coverage as it gets. The other sources are discussed above, they also are not enough for the GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Producers don't inherit notability from the works they produce..." I thought about whether this was an issue before I posted. I am a big film buff, and the artistic merit of any film is not always so easy to pin-point. Although often it lies with the director, sometimes it is the cinematography, lighting (e.g. film noir), screen-writing, acting, special effects, costume, or even the music (e.g. Jaws) that makes a film stand out. In literature, the editing of a Maxwell Perkins is indisputably a key factor to some of the greatest masterpieces. As for producing, I agree it is not so straight-forward. The producer may, in fact, have been a substantial obstacle to making the work great. The producer may have been hands-on or hand-off. But regardless of the producer's affect on the work, without the producer there is no film, so whenever they talk about films on Turner Classic Movies, the producer is frequently mentioned. So in that sense, the producer is always playing "a major role in co-creating" any movie. And if the WP:RS is talking about the producer as producer of the work, then the impact on the creation (for better or worse) makes it fit in with the criteria for notability IMHO.
    As an aside, I am a very surprised we have no separate section for notability of people with regard to films, when we have that for sports, like WP:NFOOT. The reasonable concern you raise here about what is meant by "a major role in co-creating" in regard to film could be addressed in general there. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    When a film is nominated for an Oscar for best picture, nobody says that the producers were 'nominated for best picture'. This is a very strange affectation that I have only seen with regards to producers referring to themselves. The film itself was nominated for best picture, and a film is a collaborative work amongst many people. As for nominations he got for PGoAAfBTMP, there are 2, not 'several' as required by anybio. In any case, these would only create a 'presumption' of notability. We have in fact done the search and found the available sourcing very lacking. If we can find more than brief mentions of him for sourcing, interviews (not independent), or articles written by Barry himself (not independent), as the GNG requires, I'm happy to change my mind. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 12:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to disagree with the idea that nobody says the producers were nominated for Best Picture. For one thing, the official Academy rules say that for Best Picture, "The nominees will be those three or fewer producers who have performed the major portion of the producing functions." [27] (see p. 23). And this is not an affectation used by the Academy officially and ignored by the rest of the world; see [28] ("Oprah Winfrey, nominated for her work as a producer on Selma); [29] ("Brad Pitt ... has six noms — three for acting and three for producing best picture nominees"); [30] ("Michael Douglas ... won an Oscar for best picture for producing 1975's 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'"); [31] ("Jonas Rivera ... was also nominated for a Best Picture Oscar by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for 'Up'"). And so on. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep Ok, per Metropolitan90, I'm convinced that an Oscar nomination for best picture also applies to the producer (two nominations), and that this producer has also received two nominations from the producers guild best picture (so 4 major award nominations total). This meets WP:ANYBIO point #1 "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.". That being said, it is only 'weak keep' because I'm not seeing a clear demonstration of sources meeting the standards of the General Notability Guideline, and ANYBIO only says that it is 'likely' that the person is notable. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad we convinced you. Assuming this AfD ends with keep, I am willing to help with deleting unsourced material. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep sources found suffice. In particular, the discussions of his role in the development of notable films found in books including: Steven Spielberg: A Biography, Second Edition By Joseph McBride and Joss Whedon: The BiographyBy Amy Pascale.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Subject comfortably and verifiably meets the criteria for independent notability conferred upon him by his many notable works, per sources. -The Gnome (talk) 12:42, 13 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. – Joe (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    List of sections of the Indian Penal Code[edit]

    List of sections of the Indian Penal Code (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 the table of contents of a lengthy statute. The guideline Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources, which is rarely invoked at AfD, applies here. Sandstein 16:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a single statute. It is the list of the numbers of the codification of the entire Indian Penal Code, which can be useful for legal research. My !iVote below. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion for a merge with Indian Penal Code - it might be easier to follow if the article were merged with that article, but I am ready to look at what others say here. Vorbee (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPS would still apply after a merger. Sandstein 17:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:41, 6 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) 20:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not the full text of the Code. It is essentially a list of offences etc under the Penal Code, which is appropriate, since every offence etc is going to satisfy GNG due to the massive coverage available, and we will need a navigation list. That said, this list would normally be included in the provisions section of the article on the Code. James500 (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC) The Code itself is almost certainly a tertiary source (if we apply the classification used by historians) to some extent, because this type of Code is generally a compilation of earlier legislation and case law, with a few modifications. Therefore WP:NPS doesn't apply anyway. James500 (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @James500: What is your !iVote? I can't tell. Based on comment "this list would normally be included in the provisions section of the article on the Code", does that mean you support a merge with Indian Penal Code? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically this satisfies LISTN because the provisions of the Code are notable as a group. It should however be merged with the Penal Code unless the resulting article would be too long, in which case it should be kept. Presently these pages are respectively 28 kilobytes and 40 kilobytes long. WP:TOOBIG suggests that a 60 kilobyte page probably needs to be divided into two pages, but I am not sure if that figure is up to date. My provisional !vote is keep, on the assumption TOOBIG is still accurate. However, I have no objection to merger if it is in fact technically practicable. (An alternative option would be to create an article for each chapter of the Code.) James500 (talk) 23:34, 7 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) 14:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete--I've no clue about how to add this bloat to Indian Penal Code.And, essentially per nom.∯WBGconverse 06:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - The list is indeed useful for legal research. Useful lists should stay. BabbaQ (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not a database for legal research. If we have a list of this nature, it should be a list of Wikipedia articles about individual sections, but we're nowhere near that level of coverage yet. Vanamonde (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Already covered in appropriate detail at Indian Penal Code#Structure. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:05, 14 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. Editors arguing to delete make two convincing arguments; that this comparison has minimal coverage in reliable sources, and that any information in this article that is reliably sourced can be adequately covered elsewhere. None of the "keep" arguments have adequately covered these points. Vanamonde (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Jaguar versus leopard[edit]

    Jaguar versus leopard (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 strikes me as eminently unnecessary; based entirely on WP:SYNTH where comparisons are made, and on arbitrary juxtaposition of unrelated material where that isn't done. The topic bears no comparison to Tiger versus lion - not one of my favourite pages due to the fanwankery it attracts, but that at least has a basis in plentiful existing coverage of the article topic (i.e. the comparison). This, on the other hand, features one single source of that type (#31). Everything else is thrown together in original synthesis. This article should not exist on Wikipedia. - Add: I agree that the referencing is exemplary, but unfortunately the topic choice is not. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, although meticulously referenced, this does not seem to be a topic preoccupying authors. Geschichte (talk) 20:09, 6 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) 20:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Is a well researched, well formatted article that might make a fantastic school essay or article somewhere else, but there are only two sources that explicitly discuss jaguar vs leopard, and one of them's self published. Text book WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a well referenced article. This article makes a scientific comparison between the jaguar and the leopard. I see no point to nominate a deletion for this article! - (unsigned comment by author, moved here from talk page --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    • Keep. I am in the process of tweaking it, using reliable sources like these.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] As you may see from this, the topic is quite popular, people are interested in it, especially as they somewhat resemble each other in appearance. Leo1pard (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So in essence you want to make this a special case extension of Panthera#Evolution / Panthera#Classification? Fair enough, but a) I doubt that requires a separate article and b) it will mean jettisoning everything not connected to comparative phylogenetics - which looks like most of it... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many, if not all, of those appear to be great resources. However, you have to prove notability of the specific subject. Please show us exactly where the importance of comparing specifically the Jaguar and Leopard is significant, not just a comparison of a number of different species of cats. It appears to me that every source you provided is comparing and dealing with the taxonomy of a large group of species of cats, not just those two specific ones. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • tentative Delete Move to User space. I agree it is meticulously referenced. The title strikes me as un-encyclopedic. If this comparison had enough sources to make it notable, I might be willing to concede that it warrants an article. I believe another editor above had checked and had not found enough WP:RS for notability. I do have a similar reaction to Tiger versus lion, which sounds equally un-encyclopedic. And since there appears a consensus to keep Tiger versus lion, if enough WP:RS is presented for this topic, there may be an argument to keep it. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Justification for new vote: The new title Comparison of cheetahs, jaguars and leopards is an improvement. My vote to move to user space will make it easier for editor to transfer things over. Once that is done, then delete. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am on the issue of reliable sources there, and it is the same issue that actually made Tiger versus lion be encyclopedic enough to stay. Leo1pard (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete it seems to be pretty much one guy's ideas on what's the difference between two different animals, with no encyclopedic value. (and the title is simply absurd. If kept it should be "a comparison of jaguar and leopard" or something) IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I nominated the brand new Comparison of cheetahs, jaguars and leopards for deletion, and then noticed this discussion. It is rarely a good idea when an article is up for deletion, to create a new nearly identical one... Fram (talk) 07:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not identical for the reason that the title is more encyclopedic, as User:IdreamofJeanie put it, and it has items that are not found in Jaguar versus leopard. Leo1pard (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh good grief... "The cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), jaguar (Panthera onca), and leopard (Panthera pardus) are three species of felids that are known for having yellow or tawny fur marked by spots."? What kind of a basis for an article is THAT? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is now like this: "The cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), jaguar (Panthera onca), and leopard (Panthera pardus) are three species of felids that are known for having yellow or tawny fur marked by spots.[2][7] Due to their physical similarities, they could get mistaken for one another, and so differences between them have been discussed.[8][2][1]" and WP:Notability is the basis: Leo1pard (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Jaguar versus leopard:
    Cheetah versus leopard:
    And that is not all. Even WP:reliable sources talk about it: Leo1pard (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Porter said that the jaguar could be mistaken for a "large and thick-set panther" (leopard)[1]
    2) Nowell and Jackson compared the rosettes, heads, builds and limbs of the leopard and jaguar.[2]
    3) Nowak compared their physiques.[8]

    Delete. Similar looking species typically only get mention in those other articles with statements such as subject is distinguished from other species by color, number of spines, etc. Sources talking about differences aren't really going to indicate true notability here since that happens all the time in identification literature. Panthera#Classification was already mentioned above and suits the topic just fine. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment, that does not apply if you have a whole bunch of sources[9][10][11] talking directly about it. Leo1pard (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it does. A bunch of sources do talk about it, so it's WP:DUE at Panthera, etc. Differences between species get discussed all the time, but we aren't going to have comparison articles for all those instances. Comparative phylogeny or taxonomy gets dealt with at the respective articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep both articles. All three species are confused with each other, and people will need information about 3 cats. And where is the most suitable place to look for??? ONE ENCYCLOPEDIA like Wikipedia! — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete: unnecessary and not encyclopedic. BhagyaMani (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ a b c John Hampden Porter (1894). Wild beasts; a study of the characters and habits of the elephant, lion, leopard, panther, jaguar, tiger, puma, wolf, and grizzly bear. New York, C. Scribner's sons. pp. 76–256. Retrieved 2014-01-19.
    2. ^ a b c d Nowell, Kristin; Jackson, Peter (1996). Wild Cats: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan (PDF). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group. pp. 17–149. ISBN 2-8317-0045-0.
    3. ^ Davis, B. W.; Li, G.; Murphy, W. J. (2010). "Supermatrix and species tree methods resolve phylogenetic relationships within the big cats, Panthera (Carnivora: Felidae)" (PDF). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 56 (1): 64–76. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2010.01.036. PMID 20138224. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 March 2016.
    4. ^ Mazák, J. H.; Christiansen, P.; Kitchener, A. C.; Goswami, A. (2011). "Oldest known pantherine skull and evolution of the tiger". PLOS ONE. 6 (10): e25483. Bibcode:2011PLoSO...625483M. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025483. PMC 3189913. PMID 22016768.
    5. ^ Johnson, W. E.; Eizirik, E.; Pecon-Slattery, J.; Murphy, W. J.; Antunes, A.; Teeling, E.; O'Brien, S. J. (2006). "The late Miocene radiation of modern Felidae: a genetic assessment". Science. 311 (5757): 73–77. Bibcode:2006Sci...311...73J. doi:10.1126/science.1122277. PMID 16400146. S2CID 41672825.
    6. ^ Werdelin, L.; Yamaguchi, N.; Johnson, W. E.; O'Brien, S. J. (2010). "Phylogeny and evolution of cats (Felidae)". Biology and Conservation of Wild Felids: 59–82.
    7. ^ a b Kitchener, A. C.; Breitenmoser-Würsten, C.; Eizirik, E.; Gentry, A.; Werdelin, L.; Wilting, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Abramov, A. V.; Christiansen, P.; Driscoll, C.; Duckworth, J. W.; Johnson, W.; Luo, S.-J.; Meijaard, E.; O’Donoghue, P.; Sanderson, J.; Seymour, K.; Bruford, M.; Groves, C.; Hoffmann, M.; Nowell, K.; Timmons, Z.; Tobe, S. (2017). "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae: The final report of the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group" (PDF). Cat News (Special Issue 11). ISSN 1027-2992.
    8. ^ a b Nowak, R. M. (1999). Walker's Mammals of the World (6th ed.). Baltimore, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 828–831. ISBN 978-0-8018-5789-8.
    9. ^ Israel, Elaine (1999). The world almanac for kids, 2000. Mahwah, New Jersey: World Almanac Books, distributed by St. Martin's Press.
    10. ^ Israel, Elaine (2000). The world almanac for kids, 2001. Mahwah, New Jersey: World Almanac Books, distributed by St. Martin's Press.
    11. ^ Van Valkenburgh, B.; Pang, B.; Cherin, M.; Rook, L. (2017). "Chapter 3 - the Cheetah: Evolutionary History and Paleoecology". In Nyhus, P. J.; Marker, L.; Boast, L. K.; Schmidt-Kuentzel, A. (eds.). Cheetahs: Biology and Conservation (Chapter 3 – The Cheetah: Evolutionary History and Paleoecology). Biodiversity of World: Conservation from Genes to Landscapes. Elsevier. pp. 25–32. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-804088-1.00003-4. ISBN 9780128040881. Retrieved 2018-09-11.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. The sources provided during the discussion have not been countered. Vanamonde (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    PPC Ltd.[edit]

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

    No evidence of any notability. Recently added sources by COI editor are both own web-sites. Searches reveal very little better. Previous PROD removed by COI editor. This appears to be a large company but with a very low profile. Currently fails to meet WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   10:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    DO NOT DELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PPCZA (talk • contribs) 10:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The company is large and easily notable, as a simple search for sources indicates (for example [32], [33] and [34]). The article in its current state is poor, and includes copyright violations, but these need to be fixed, rather than the whole article being deleted. Greenman (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It's a big old company based in South Africa. I'd love to see this pass muster for a Wikipedia article, but it doesn't now. Why not? Is it just a big old company that nobody has every written anything on? I guess then it is not notable. Is there something you just haven't noticed or are leaving out? Well get off your duff and find it! or just put it in. It is difficult for folks outside of Africa to find out what's the problem, but there does seem to be a problem. Temporary delete until it is fixed. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you get to 'nobody has ever written anything on' from the sources I've listed? With literally the first search I made, I found sources from one of South Africa's largest media websites, one of South Africa's most notable financial websites, and Bloomberg. If by 'nobody has ever written anything on' you're referring to Wikipedia, that's not grounds for deletion, that's grounds for, as you say, getting off your duff and fixing it :) As WP:ATD states, 'If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page'. Greenman (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, my question should have been "Is it just a big old company that nobody has ever written anything in depth on?." I see from the list on the article page:
    • a directory listing from Bloomberg
    • a fairly routine coverage of a bond ratings change (this happens all the time). There is some analysis on why the bond rating was changed, but I don't know whether the source is reliable, and the analysis has not been included in the Wikipedia article (yet?).
    • An announcement of a failed merger(?) - forgive me for not being sure what it is but the terminology is quite different than I would use - so it is just difficult for me to know what they are really saying. Again, I don't know anything about the reliability of the source.
    • The company's annual report - it's good that this is available to the reader, but it doesn't look like the material is being included in the Wikiarticle and of course it is not an indepenent source.
    So if you are just going to leave it in its current state, or to rely on my efforts to improve this, I'd still have to say delete. I do hope somebody will improve this, but it won't be me. Sorry. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how Wikipedia's deletion policy works. You cannot ask someone to improve the article for you (or be expected to improve it yourself), or else it will be deleted. Deletion is based on the topic's notability, based on reliable sources. Many articles start as stubs and get improved over time. Please read the links above. The comments about not knowing whether the sources are reliable is a bit like someone going unfamiliar with US business going "Wall Street Journal, hmm, don't know if that's a reliable source" and then suggesting the topic be deleted, so can only suggest familiarising yourself a bit more with the area. Greenman (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you reach this conclusion? Did you perform a search? I've just performed another search, and it took me seconds to find sources from Daily News, Forbes, IOL, Fin24, eNCA , Business Day, Moneyweb, Biz Community, Citizen... Greenman (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. directory entry, based on PR and directory material .there is no sustantial coverage. The sources give seem to be either brief notices or listings. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you actually search? Looking for news articles, I find them discussed as part of a cement cartel in Business Live, as part of the countrywide cement shortage in Zimbabwe Daily News. Those are from today only :) How are these PR and directory listings? Greenman (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Greenman can you post links to three or four references you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability here please? Take a look at WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND beforehand so that you're familiar with two parts of NCORP that typically disqualify references from being used for the purposes of establishing notability. HighKing++ 19:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
      1. Terence, McNamee; Pearson, Mark; Boer, Wiebe, eds. (2015). Africans Investing in Africa: Understanding Business and Trade, Sector by Sector. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 129, 133–136, 140–141. doi:10.1057/9781137542809. ISBN 978-1-137-54280-9. Retrieved 2018-09-05.

        The book's index notes on page 334 which pages PPC has been mentioned on or discussed:

        PPC, 129, 133–6, 140–1

        The book notes on page 134:

        PPC and its future in Africa

        PPC was, for a long time, the largest home-grown cement producer on the continent. It is also the oldest cement company in Africa, started in 1892, and has been listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange since 1910. Described as a large-scale domestic player in the South African cement industry, PPC accounts for around 43 per cent of South Africa’s market share, traditionally focused on manufacturing and supply to the South African market with a moderate amount of exports to surrounding countries. It is also the only cement producer with a complete national footprint of integrated plants.19

        The high demand for cement in South Africa has always encouraged PPC to concentrate its efforts on the local market, with little interest beyond the borders where low levels of efficiency and high costs were not necessarily met with market demand. This was especially the case between 2004 and 2010 when large-scale infrastructure projects were being rolled out in South Africa along with a spike in construction around the FIFA World Cup Football Finals. This was a period of substantial growth in nearby African markets, when most observers would have expected PPC to expand outward. However, capacity constraints due to the company structure as a subsidiary of Barlow kept the company at home, apart from moderate exports to neighbouring countries, a few exploration projects in the Southern Africa region and one or two investments in neighbouring Zimbabwe and Botswana. PPC acquired Portland Holdings Limited in Zimbabwe in 2001 and PPC-Botswana, originally CEMPACK, was a partnership PPC entered into with the Botswana government in 1994.

        In 2007, with the unbundling of PPC from Barlow, PPC were able to launch their Africa-wide strategy with the help of a large capex injection into the share market from Barlow’s 70 per cent holding over the company. PPC also focused its offering on becoming more vertically integrated in their customer’s business model, adding value through efficient capacity and strong customer relations. This, inadvertently, started drawing them further into new African markets, as local demand for cement commodities began to taper off. With an eye on expanding into the rest of Africa, PPC adopted the strategy of growing beyond the South African market but as head of PPC for Africa Pepe Meijer described, ‘Keeping the home fires burning’.

        There is further discussion about the company on pages 135 and 136.
      2. Johannesburg Stock Exchange: Centenary 1987: A Commemorative History of All Listed Companies. Johannesburg: Flesch Financial Publications. 1987. pp. 191–192. ISBN 978-0-949-98947-5. Retrieved 2018-09-05.

        The book notes:

        Pretoria Portland Cement Company Ltd. (PPC)

        Ind. — Building & Construction.

        ...

        Nature of Business: Pretoria Portland Cement Company Limited is a South African company and the group supplies the major portion of the country's cement and lime needs. The company has investments in the ready mixed concrete industry and in other companies connected with the supply of cementitious products. Group companies manufacture and distribute cement, lime and limestone products, paper sacks and other containers.

        History: Founded in 1892 De Eerste Cement Fabrieken Beperkt, today known as Pretoria Portland Cement Company Limited, is the oldest and largest cement manufacturer in South Africa. It supplies about 46 per cent of the country's cement needs and 65 per cent of the lime consumed in this country.

        De Eerste Cement Fabrieken, called Hercules by its first manager in symbolic acknowledgement of the strength it would eventually lend the country it served, was officially opened by Paul Kruger, President of the Transvaal Republic. Sited several kilometres north of Pretoria, the factory was established to provide locally produced cement for the building and infrastructural development following the discovery of gold on the Witwatersrand. It was in 1907 that the lime division was founded to meet the demands of the goldmines which, at that stage, were importing most of the lime required for the newly introduced gold cyanidation process.

      3. Mahlaka, Ray (2018-07-03). "Why S&P is upbeat on PPC: The cement maker's improved liquidity position and rest of Africa earning potential impresses the ratings agency". Moneyweb. Archived from the original on 2018-09-05. Retrieved 2018-09-05.

        According to https://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/the-citizen-kzn/20180704/281917363828249, this article also was published in the 4 July 2018 edition of The Citizen.

        The article notes:

        Two years later and a more than 50% drop in PPC’s share price, a different company has emerged, even prompting S&P to upgrade its credit rating. On Friday, S&P raised PPC’s long-term corporate credit rating to zaA- and short-term to zaA-2 (both investment grade). In a note, S&P said the improved rating reflects PPC’s “broadly stable” underlying credit metrics, earnings and adequate liquidity.

        The upgrade in PPC’s credit rating is largely due to its significant progress in strengthening the balance sheet by restructuring South African debt, reducing interest rate costs and with the performance of its rest of Africa operations.

        PPC successfully raised R4 billion in 2016 via a rights offer, reducing group debt from R9.1 billion in the year to March 2016 to R4.7 billion in the year to March 2018. PPC also managed to negotiate a two-year moratorium for DRC project funding of R2.1 billion (representing more than 35% of its total debt) with interest payments also extended by two years.

        “In our opinion, its improved capital structure and liquidity profile will help mitigate the adverse effects of cyclicality in the building materials industry, especially given the relatively depressed operating environment in SA,” S&P said.

        The article also quotes from Meyrick Barker, an investment analyst at Kagiso Asset Management, and Mish-al Emeran, an analyst at Electus Fund Managers.
      4. Kew, Janice; Khanyile, Neo; Spillane, Chris (2015-03-18). "PPC takes title of being SA's worst performing stock". Business Report. Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2018-09-05. Retrieved 2018-09-05.

        According to https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-405764877.html, this article also was published in the 18 March 2015 edition of The Star.

        The article notes:

        CEMENT maker PPC is under new leadership, in talks about a possible merger and facing tougher competition at home and on the continent. That’s made it the country’s worst performing stock this year.

        The shares are down 37 percent so far this year, closing at R17.44 on the JSE yesterday, and trading almost 47 percent lower than when former chief executive Ketso Gordhan’s resignation was announced on September 22.

        ...

        “It’s reasonable to say that there was a lot of uncertainty,” Roy Mutooni, an analyst at Renaissance Capital, who has a buy recommendation on the stock, said. “Why would you want to come in now? Nothing really has been resolved.”

        The article also quotes from Victor Seanie, an investment analyst at Kagiso Asset Management.
      5. Kew, Janice; Prinsloo, Loni (2017-10-25). "PPC an unlikely candidate for a takeover battle — yet it has several suitors". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2018-09-05. Retrieved 2018-09-05.

        The article notes:

        SA’s biggest cement maker, PPC, is an unlikely candidate for a takeover battle.

        ...

        "PPC has a good portfolio of assets," UBS analyst Kwame Antwi said. "Cement consumption on the continent is lower than most parts of the world, and Africa is also likely to experience some of the most rapid urbanisation rates."

        ...

        "The share price got too cheap and was trading significantly below replacement value of the underlying assets," UBS’s Kwame said. "Such a scenario will always attract the attention of bargain hunters."

        The article also quotes from Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Sonia Baldeira.
      There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow PPC to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

      Cunard (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep There is coverage by analysts that meets the criteria for establishing notability as provided by Cunard above. Topic meets GNG and NCORP. HighKing++ 10:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:14, 6 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 redirect to Dschinghis Khan. – Joe (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Pistolero (Dschinghis Khan song)[edit]

    Pistolero (Dschinghis Khan song) (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 PROD'ded this song article, and the PROD was removed by the creator with the statement that the article has plenty of sources. Actually the first source from Germancharts.de is merely a discography listing showing that the single was released, with no chart position that I can find (see comment from Richard 3120 below). Then there are several Discogs sources, which establish existence but not notability. The German magazine article "Rocking Son of Dschinghis Khan" (via Google Translate) is actually about the band and only name-drops this single once, near the end of the second paragraph. I can find no independent sources to establish notability for this single in its own right, and existence is not enough for a WP article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep song has enough references. I'm the creator of this article, it could be improved yet I feel it is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, in my opinion. Neptune's Trident (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You've already said twice that it has "enough references". Quantity does not matter, quality does. See WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV, WP:V, WP:INDEPENDENT, and connected Wikipedia guidelines. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: the song reached no. 15 on the German singles chart in February 1981 [35]. Given that the group had nine other top 30 hits in Germany between 1979 and 1982, it's likely that print sources exist about the group and this single, but they're going to be hard to find. Neptune's Trident, the Discogs listings only prove the single exists, not that it's notable, and they don't count as reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Richard for finding the chart information. I concede that this helps with the song's notability to a certain extent, but I am still concerned about significant coverage from multiple, reliable sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Dschinghis Khan. Even if the song is notable for reaching some position on some chart, this will only add maybe a single extra sentence to an article, which is still very short, and as WP:NSONG says - "a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album".Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Richard3120. Reached number 15 in the German singles chart. James500 (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect, to a page about the album, and failing that to the one about the artist. Even if this is presumed notable, it is a one-sentence stub; no sources have been provided, nor can I find any, that provide material for expansion. Vanamonde (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Dschinghis Khan. Is this notable? Probably. The problem is that the article is so short that it contains no more information than what is in the article title. Ok, I'm wrong, the article contains the year it was recorded, and the genre of music. However, in an IAR vein, I think the reader would gain a better understanding of the subject if they were redirected to the artist page, where the single is listed, the genre of the artist is explained in more detail, and the year of the single is given. If/when more detailed encyclopedic information about this charting song becomes available the article can be re-created over the redirect. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:49, 14 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. Vanamonde (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yuvasri Lakshmi[edit]

    Yuvasri Lakshmi (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 actress with only minor roles and no coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    She has some interviews done I got some information on that. By the way I have a question if I create page it creates as draft with one of the administrators approval it would become an article, is this how Wikipedia works? Sayeditor ❯❯❯ 22:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it is better to keep this page and publish as article Sayeditor ❯❯❯ 04:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:09, 6 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. If the election has to be re-done, this may indicate that WP:NPOL#1 isn't met yet. Apparently WP:GNG isn't met here yet, either, but as noted before we can have articles that meet NPOL even if they fail GNG. If people want to move this to draft they can ask on WP:REFUND, ditto for undeletion if Zahid Ali is elected for real in the future. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Zahid Ali (politician)[edit]

    Zahid Ali (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)

    He was elected in July 2018 elections however even after a month, the election commission of Pakistan has not yet notified the subject as returning candidate. Fails to pass WP:BIO fow now. If and when notified, we can re-create the bio. Saqib (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: According to almost all online sources available [36], [37], [38], [39], the individual is an elected MP and meets notability guidelines in WP:POLITICIAN, we can delete it when we find a reliable source contrary to this. Until then, the individual is notable. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @SheriffIsInTown: But chances appear slim if we read this news story. --Saqib (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    On a different note, subject's correct name is "Zabid Ali Reki" as per this Dawn article and per his official FB page. --Saqib (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot go by chances, I will get it deleted myself if and when we have a proof from reliable sources that he was not elected and someone else is but at this point according to reliable sources he was the winner. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. But I'm of the opinion that in the absence of Election Commission's notification, the subject is technically (or if I better say officially) not elected. It's more than a month now. And we don't know how long the Election Commission may take to announce the decision. In any case, I would prefer to let this AfD run its course. --Saqib (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My point of view is a bit different on this matter. According to Wikipedia policies on sourcing and notability, once reliable secondary sources report win of a candidate, the candidate meets the notability criteria per WP:POLITICIAN. Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) being the primary source in this matter can take their time to issue an official notification, it does not have any bearing on Wikipedia's sourcing policies as WP:RS does not state that the source must be an official source, actually it advises against WP:PRIMARY. If my point of view is accepted and the article is kept, here is what could happen in the case of this individual. ECP officially notifies in favor of this individual then the article stays, ECP notifies in favor of another candidate, I get it G7ed, ECP orders re-election, I get it G7ed. So, in my point of view, there is no rush to get it deleted while we have reliable sources supporting his win. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @SheriffIsInTown: The ECP has ordered re-polling in the constituency as per this news story. --Saqib (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in the whole constituency though, just in 2 out of 98 polling stations which is just 2.07% of the constituency! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or procedural keep At this moment, it appears that the subject won his election, and will meet WP:NPOL. That said, since official certification is in flux, and the sourcing is adequate for the claim of notability, there is no harm in keeping the article until the result is determined. At that point, there could be a debate about whether the subject remains independently notable or whether it should be redirected to a page describing the controversy. --Enos733 (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Enos733, Please read wP:AADD once again. specially WP:FUTURE and WP:HARMLESS regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The Election Commission has not notified and he is not elected officially. Chances are that he won't be declared as an elclected assembly member. So I go for delete. Although we can surely wait for some more time.Knightrises10 (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep In a very similar argument to the one I used above Keep - there is an interesting dispute about whether NPOL could be deemed to apply from winning an election (the same dispute could occur in versions of a winning candidate dying before taking up office), I think that there is sufficient coverage independent of that precisely because of the controversy to make it a keep. In addition to suggesting an individual article is appropriate via NPOL anyway, I think the nature of the event being about the candidate not meeting citizenship requirements that I don't think an BLP1E applies sufficiently to warrant this article not being appropriate either, with NBIO/GNG determining it. Nosebagbear (talk)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Election is still disputed and just simply elected does not mean notable. see below. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:FUTURE andWP:POLITICIAN. [Updated] he is not elected yet, and he fails WP:POLITICIAN, The policy does not say that every elected person is notable. Enos733, Nosebagbear, User:Editorofthewiki please note that It clearly states that the person must hold a nationwide or statewide relevant office (i.e. ministry) which this politician does not. Also he does not have the significant independent biographical coverage and not just minor controversial passing mentions to pass the WP:GNG, The links posted above only show that he was leading, no links presented to demonstrate the notability, which the subject lacks. Saqib and Knightrises10 have raised valid concerns. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    While the policy does not say that every elected person is notable, one of the goals of this project is to be comprehensive, especially around individuals who are elected to a statewide(province-wide) or federal position (or hold an appointed statewide or federal position). Once a person who has been elected to a position that is notable (and we can find an official source confirming that position), we presume that individual as notable (because there will likely be reliably sourced, verifiable information about the subject). While in this case the official results are pending certification, WP:Crystal works both ways (we should not assume the person who is leading the tally is not elected, but we should be sensitive that the final result is not certified). Once the Electoral Commission acts, then we can review the notability of the subject again, but we should recognize that the controversy surrounding the electoral results generally adds more weight toward notability. (As an aside, this is not the first case where there was a subject who won election and not taken office. I remember a Senator in Australia [if memory serves], that came to AfD). --Enos733 (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever your personal opinions are, Since there is no such policy that says Every person elected to State assembly is notable we cannot assume the same. So far the keep side has failed to show even one source that provides the Significant coverage to this subject. There is absolutely no policy based justification to keep it as of now. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPOL clause Pass / Fail reason
    State/Nation wide office and legislature elected Red XN Fail No statewide ministry held and election not won.
    Significant coverage GNG Red XN Fail No coverage other than passing mention
    over all WP:POLITICIAN Red XN Fail above reasons
    --DBigXrayᗙ 09:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of Pakistani politician pages are created based on WP:NPOL without subject having significant coverage after Pakistani general election, 2018, just because they were elected to provincial or national legislature. Unless we have information to the contrary, this individual is elected as per secondary reliable sources. Once we have a source confirming that he was not elected then we can delete it. WP:NPOL states (bold parts apply to this individual and make him notable): The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because some editors improperly familiar with the Wikipedia's notability policy WP:POLITICIAN have created a bunch of junk articles does not mean WP:Other stuff exists will be a reason to justify keeping more of the junk. You are clearly Cherry picking the lines in the policy to improperly justify your !vote. let me Quote the "Full" WP:NPOL policy for you. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges WP:POLITICIAN
    1. Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. Red XN Fail
    2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Red XN Fail
    Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Red XN Fail --DBigXrayᗙ 11:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you cherrypicked bits and pieces from the policies to show how he might be failing notability so how is it wrong for me to quote text from policy to show that he meets the criteria specified in WP:NPOL plus the whole controversy involving abduction of presiding officer makes his win more notable. So point number 1 highlighted in your comment is actually quite the opposite in reality:
    • The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. Green tickY Pass
    In my personal opinion, I am against creating the articles just because of an election, if it was up to my personal preference, Wikipedia would not have articles for MPs and just for top-most national and provincial office holders such as Prime Minister, President, Speakers of National Assembly, Chairman of the Senate, opposition leader, and cabinet ministers at the national level while governors, chief ministers, opposition leader, and cabinet ministers at the provincial level. All others including MPs would have to meet the general criteria for notability but my personal opinion does not matter when it comes to the policy and WP:NPOL allows the creation of articles for these nominally notable individuals just because they were elected in an election. According to my opinion WP:NPOL is too generous regarding notability of these individuals. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOL#1 has 2 conditions to be met, there is AND clause. the politician has to be a minister (holding office) AND elected as well. I am not sure why you are unable to understnd this simple statement. And I guess people like you are not alone, so An extra line after #2 has been added to make this policy clear to such folks that Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability--DBigXrayᗙ 15:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @DBigXray: I am afraid your understanding of English language is wrong, "and" here separates the folks in two categories and not link them together. The second statement you are referring is not added to clarify this point but it is actually about totally different set of individuals. That is about "elected local officials" or "unelected candidates". The policy separately clarifies the notability criteria regarding elected national officials, elected provincial officials, elected local officials, and unelected candidates. First point states that elected members of national and provincial legislatures are automatically notable no matter the level of coverage they receive. The latter point clarifies that this same criteria does not apply to elected local officials and unelected candidates, their notability should be separately judged. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, Policy nowhere states that "election to provincial assembly confers notability", it actually says that election by itself is not sufficient See the red font above. WP:GNG has to be met as well. If you want to misrepresent the Policy, it's your choice. The subject as of now is not even elected. If you have refs and sources to prove the notability. I am ready to vote keep, but they don't exist. hence the Delete !vote. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @DBigXray: Here local office ≠ national or subnational legislature. --Saqib (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Clearly not going to meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. WP:AADD#CRYSTAL is not an accurate argument. Capitals00 (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Insignificant coverage to fulfill purpose of WP:NPOLITICIAN. Raymond3023 (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Lack of necessary coverage in WP:RS. Sdmarathe (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it extremely tiresome to come to a deletion discussion hoping to close it, and to find that it has turned into yet another nationalist battleground. It is doubly tiresome to find that half the arguments are based on a complete misrepresentation of our guidelines. WP:NPOL says, clearly and beyond doubt, that members of a state or provincial legislature are presumed notable. They need to meet no other criteria. They certainly do not need to meet GNG. The only argument here that has any weight is Saqib's original argument that Ali may not, in fact, have been elected; but to that, we can only go by what the sources say. At the moment, I see no sources suggesting that he isn't the elected representative, and that should be that. Vanamonde (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. As an elected state or provincial legislature politician, he meets WP:NPOL. Anything else is subsidiary. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. I have reverted my "Keep" close, as it was based on a misreading of a source. I won't close as "Delete", either; I feel the discussion needs to continue. Bishonen | talk 07:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment In continuation to my Delete vote above, I feel I must clarify this subjects position more clearly. (TLDR; this person never won any election, hence non notable)
    • This subject has never won any election before and only has passing mentions in 2018 election related news sites.
    • Election commision of Pakistan decides and declares a winner of election and not Pakistani news and online sites who are tracking the votes.
    • Saqib wrote in the nomination: by 30 August, the Election Commission hasn't notified him as the winner.
    • Chronologically On 7th August The victory notification of this candidate was cancelled by Election commision. [40]
    • the previous election has been invalidated. and on on 11 Sept [41], Repolling has been ordered by EC so a new winner will be announced later . The Winner will be decided on the basis of this repoll. This person is not winner, and hence the Keep argument is void.
    • As of now Even the dates of re-election have not been declared. It will take months for the process of re-election to be completed and new winner to be declared.
    • It is not correct to wait for months because there is no guarantee that this same candidate will win again. perWP:FUTURE
    • In this situation, we can't go by what the old news reports said. They don't decide whether he has been elected or not. Only the EC can. And the EC has clearly said "not winner".
    • there is absolutely zero coverage of this person in media hence WP:GNG is failed by miles.
    • Some of the contributors have erroneously voted KEEP saying that he is Notable because he has won the election, well the fact is he didn't. Other contributors including me in the AFD have clearly pointed that this person cannot be claimed as a winner of election since the deciding authority, The Election Commision has already trashed its previous notification and called for fresh re-election which can have a new winner. So basically the sole ground for keep vote that "he is elected hence notable" is already void.DBigXrayᗙ 08:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think in this rather outlying case, there was rather a view that getting the most votes is a fairly notable thing, as he was struck down on nationality basis. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nosebagbear, At AfD we have to follow policy [Edit: and Guidelines], WP:NPOLITICIAN nowhere states that "getting most votes is notable", it talks about the winner. and the deciding authority in the case the EC has not declared him the winner, so there no reasonable argument for keep. The only fallback option for this subject for Notability was GNG, and there is absolutely zero coverage of this person in media hence WP:GNG is failed by miles.--DBigXrayᗙ 08:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well firstly, it isn't a policy, it's a guideline, which specifically notes edge cases. I'll cover the point properly, but it will probably have to be tomorrow. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I stand corrected, but that is what we have and should follow rather than personal preferences. BLPs have strict criteria for a reason. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, I realise my comment above was somewhat curter than it should be, apologies. BLPs have strong rules in terms of supporting controversial facts etc, but their rules on entrance criteria vary massively - NSPORTS (esp NFOOTY) for example is very easy to satisfy. Hence the dispute currently going on in this AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Greetings, Nosebagbear. Just a tangential comment: IMVHO, there's not a lot of difference between policies and guidelines. Per WP:GUIDES, policies describe standards that all users should normally follow while guidelines are best practices that are editors should attempt to follow, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Not much of a wide margin between "should normally follow" and "should attempt to follow," in my view. All this is in keeping with the free spirit of Wikipedia, of course, but I find that the community following policies and guidelines (which, importantly, the community itself has established!) is not just damn good politics but quite practical too. But, as you said, an AfD may not be the best place to discuss this at length. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - as per nom and DBigXray. The election has been invalidated (due to irregularities) and the subject doesn't qualify under WP:POLITICIAN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to Draft until the election is finally decided. Contrary to what has been said above with respect to WP:POLITICIAN, we have always kept all articles of people actually elected to provincial and national legislatures. The interpretation of a guideline is decided by the community, and consistent decisions establish a interpretation. Its true we often have relatively little informatio nabout provincial legislatures in some countries--this sshould be seen as an example of culture bias,and what we ought to do, and what in practice we always actually do, is keep the articles in the anticipation of eventual expansion. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 16 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. North America1000 17:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Shawn C. Phillips[edit]

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

    No evidence of any notability. One ref is an interview and another is one of his own YouTube videos. The Big Issue reports no content related to the subject even in a search and IMDB is an unreliable source. Searches reveal very little except the expected swathe of social media references. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   14:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete I checked real name and his youtube alias and wasn't able to find reliable source coverage to validate that he meets WP:GNG. Has a lot of credits on IMDB, but having a bunch of mostly minor roles in non-notable films doesn't add up to meeting WP:NACTOR. Now, if it could be validated that he has a large cult following, he could get a pass on criteria 2 of that notability guideline, but none of the references I can find seem to demonstrate that. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Unable to find anything demonstrating notability. Mcewan (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Doesn't pass WP:NActor .Nothing i found about this subject shows that they pass the notability guidelines of this site. JC7V-constructive zone 05:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC✉ 21:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There's no evidence of the significant independent coverage in reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG nor is there anything to show WP:NACTOR is met. Papaursa (talk) 23:04, 10 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 per WP:WITHDRAW. (non-admin closure) Dom from Paris (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Matthieu Pichot[edit]

    Matthieu Pichot (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:NFOOTY has never played a pro match and WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:32, 6 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Faith and Culture Center, Medellin[edit]

    Faith and Culture Center, Medellin (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, promo. Largely based on the own website and related sources The Banner talk 10:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 13:21, 6 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. There is no consensus as to whether a redirect or a page move of Vulgaria (film) is more appropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Vulgaria[edit]

    Vulgaria (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)

    Consists entirely of MOS:INUNIVERSE, nothing is referenced. Should be redirected to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Nothing to merge as the target page already contains adequate plot description. AfD per challenged WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, doesn't appear notable outside of the movie. Should check history to see if any other uses of "Vulgarian" that have been trimmed out should be retained. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect Delete to CCBB, obviously is a wildly unneeded content fork and lacking independent notability. I don't think a Merge is needed as plot information is already there and why include excessive detail on appearance on this particular location vs all the others. It would be considered UNDUE if we merged the content. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And Move Vulgaria (film) - Bilorv, below, makes an excellent point. It would have to be a significant search term for a redirect to beat out letting an actual article hold the name. It can hardly be a major search term for CCBB and a hatnote would serve well enough. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 13:18, 6 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 per WP:WITHDRAW. (non-admin closure) Dom from Paris (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Bamba Diarrassouba[edit]

    Bamba Diarrassouba (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:NFOOTY has not made an appearance in a fully pro league and fails WP:GNG the sources are too weak. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:40, 6 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 Solar power in India. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Solar Alternatives and Associated Programmes[edit]

    Solar Alternatives and Associated Programmes (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)

    promo, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Once the blogspot and Indiamart sources were trimmed out, a couple of adequate sources remain. However the overall intent and raison d'etre of this article is promotion of any and all Jesuit Projects, per User:Jzsj's editing efforts wiki-wide. I have to wonder if GNG is met here, given the promotional effort. Yes, there are a few good sources, but on the other hand the article is the result of a concerted promotional effort that ignores RS and other basics. it's promotional, so I have to say Delete. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:46, 6 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. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Clément Couturier[edit]

    Clément Couturier (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:NFOOTY has never played a pro match and WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If feels disingenuous to say he’s never played a pro game when he’s played in the French Cup Final, the Champions League, and the Europa League. User:Hildreth gazzard (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The definition of disingenous is "not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does". You would do well to remember to WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor, I object quite strongly to the suggestion that I am being disingenous because I am stating the WP:NFOOTY guidelines which state that players are presumed notable if they are
    1. Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA, in a competitive senior international match at confederation level regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA, or the Olympic Games. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.
    2. Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football. (my bolding)
    He may pass GNG but not with the sources you have provided. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep seems to easily meet WP:GNG. [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] among others. Needs improving, not deletion, especially as he is likely to feature in the Europa League group stage (he has played all 8 European games for Dudelange this season.) SportingFlyer talk 18:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per the references detailed above that show that he passes WP:BASIC, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep WP:NFOOTY should probably be rewritten to explicitly include the group and knockout stages of the Champions and Europa League, even when those teams are not from FPLs, and in any case he passes WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The links posted by SportingFlyer show the subject indeed passes WP:GNG. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:28, 12 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Suyusama Foundation[edit]

    Suyusama Foundation (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, promo The Banner talk 10:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: fails WP:ORGSIG, WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH. The only reference that covers the organisation in detail is the academic paper in Iconos – everything else is passing mentions of their involvement in programs, either in local websites and blogs, by partner universities or organisations, or by Jesuit organisations (who aren't neutral). Richard3120 (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete since subject fails at least the notability criteria listed above by Richard3120. -The Gnome (talk) 14:01, 13 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sudeep Ranjan Sarkar[edit]

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

    I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and current sources provide nothing but a passing mention and most of them are not even reliable. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete--IMO the director is a bit more notable, than the nom puts it but frankly, how the fuck does someone write such p***-poor spam, without minimal regards to encyclopedic-ness? (Vide who came to Kolkata with multiple dreams, He is also known the world over as a sharp witted Philosopher.....). This so-nicely fits with the first part of John's comments over his u/p, as to paid-editing.∯WBGconverse 13:17, 12 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Miss Millenial International 2018[edit]

    Miss Millenial International 2018 (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 tried to correct and improve this article but it doesn't have any reliable independent sources to clarify the events importance. Also all its 3 sources are social media facebook posts which are not regarded here. SkillsM674 (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:49, 6 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. ~ GB fan 17:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Mantrap (access control)[edit]

    Mantrap (access control) (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 seems like a dictionary definition and relies on a single article for its content. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. It's clearly more than a dictdef. Insufficient references is only a deletion criterion for living people. I have an open mind as to whether the article is likely to grow to be more than a stub. If not, then rather than being deleted it should be merged to e.g. Physical security. jnestorius(talk) 09:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Satisfies GNG. Capable of being expanded beyond a definition. James500 (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:19, 6 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. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Figure It Out (French Montana song)[edit]

    Figure It Out (French Montana song) (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)

    Another edit war between article and redirect. Brought here for larger discussion. Does #4 US Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles (Billboard) constitute notability? I am neutral on the decision. Richhoncho (talk) 10:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, considering there are at least seven news sources on the article so far (Complex, Mic, The Fader, Highsnobiety, NME, Rap-Up and Fuse) and could be expanded further if this is just a sampling. It actually has more coverage than I was expecting, and more coverage than similar pages up for deletion like this. While it may have peaked lowly, it meets the other criterion for coverage in third-party independent news sources. Ss112 14:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, for having significant coverage, which is predictable for a song Kanye West and Nas collaborated on. Not to say that anything they do is automatically notable, but music press will almost certainly cover it, making it notable.Rosguilltalk 05:28, 7 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Death of Manon Dubé[edit]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Does not meet WP:NCRIME and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Includes speculation, it was never proven that she was killed in a hit-and-run. » Shadowowl | talk 11:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless shown that this was a major case. Note that the source focuses on another case. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete for now. Perhaps re-create in future if someone feels they can expand the subject further. BabbaQ (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crime database, and does not simply maintain an article about every individual unsolved cold case on earth that can be single-sourced as existing — to keep an article about something like this, we would require some compelling evidence of enduring significance, which this isn't even attempting to provide. And for that matter, it isn't even the main subject of the sole source that is here, but just gets briefly namechecked as a similar situation to the different unsolved case that is the subject of the source. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 13 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    LOA-CFA[edit]

    LOA-CFA (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 a long-term orphan and long-term unreferenced. I cannot verify the contents, and the subject is not notable. (A recent PROD was removed by an IP user without substantive improvement to the article). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 05:35, 6 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. PMC's analysis of the sources is solid, and has not been refuted. Vanamonde (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Zaid Ali Tahir[edit]

    Zaid Ali Tahir (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 on WP:ENT and WP:GNG. There are some trivial coverage in reliable sources else it's a borderline A7 case. Hitro talk 03:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I declined the speedy, as this page under discussion is different enough from the prior page. No opinion on the merits of this AfD. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And I still don't see the subject meeting WP:BIO. --Saqib (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - subject is nowhere near meeting WP:GNG Adamtt9 (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep One of the most famous Youtubers in Pakistan with over a million subscribers. Knightrises10 (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POPULARITY ≠ notablity. --Saqib (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There are at least five reliable news sources. Knightrises10 (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So? --Saqib (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    passes WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete since subject fails WP:NWEB, WP:ENT, and even WP:GNG. Some editors still confuse popularity with Wikinotability. If the two were identical, then, for example, every single writer of mass circulation pulp would have a Wikipedia article. The recurring appearance of this text under slight variants in the title make obligatory a suggestion to also Salt. -The Gnome (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the article has five reliable sources press references and so he passes WP:BASIC even though there is a snobbish attitude to YouTube celebrities and topics they should not be ignored when they are obviously given coverage in multiple reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Of the noted sources, two are routine tabloid filler pieces gushing about his marriage announcement, one is an interview, and one is half puff half interview about him declining a Hollywood role. The only one of any substance is The News on Sunday and it's not enough to hang an article on. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:25, 13 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. North America1000 16:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Jacqueline Wright (actress)[edit]

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

    Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:ENT. reddogsix (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • DeleteLacks significant coverage Freetheangels (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fails WP:GNG and no reliable sources provide significant coverage. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Not notable. Fails NACTRESS and GNG. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:52, 13 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Joseph Ragno[edit]

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

    Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:ENT. reddogsix (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 13:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 15:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Not notable. Fails NACTOR and GNG. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:45, 13 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. Vanamonde (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Gabby Ortiz[edit]

    Gabby Ortiz (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 Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 15:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 15:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 15:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Clearly fails GNG. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete agree per nom. MBlaze Lightning 08:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As I mentioned above, the coverage meets GNG. Being featured in Philly.com is a pretty clear indication of notability. The added acknowledgment from the mayor of Philadelphia helps solidify this. Multiple features in podcasts and interviews enhance the assertion of notability. Add to that her extended tenure with ROH--the third biggest promotion in the United States--and it's a pretty solid case (note that, in ice hockey, 200 games in a high-level minor league such as the AHL meets the notability guidelines; surely a year and a half in the wrestling equivalent should speak for itself). It should also be noted that the Lovelylinda1980 account seems to have only been active for a single day, and I would therefore take with a grain of salt, especially given some of the accounts other notability/deletion-related edits. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete did a deep research and most of the sources are mostly announcement or a passing mention. No doubt that the article is going to be recreated in near future. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:19, 11 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hollywood East Film Festival[edit]

    Hollywood East Film Festival (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)

    Semi-advertorialized article about a minor film festival, not properly sourced as clearing WP:ORGDEPTH or our notability standards for events. As always, every film festival is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because its own self-published website technically verifies that it exists -- but (a) even its own website is defunct, and (b) there are no other sources being cited here to confer notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I can't find anything to show that this film festival is notable. It also looks to be defunct since I can't find any information to show that it's still running other than some Facebook posts from 2017, so the odds of more sourcing coming about is rather slim. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 05:10, 6 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. I would be happy to refund a copy of this to anyone interested in developing this towards a merger: deleting outright at the moment because the quantity of reliably sourced information is minimal, rendering arguments for a merger weaker. Vanamonde (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Media Play News[edit]

    Media Play News (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)

    Previously deleted per WP:PROD and restored by request at WP:REFUND. Original rationale was that this company is very far from meeting the inclusion criteria of WP:CORP. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per my PROD rationale, this company is very far from meeting the notability requirements of WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • MAINTAIN as this is a legitimate news publication and successor to Home Media Magazine, which has long had a WP page. Media Play News is a frequent source of movie news and release dates included under specific movie titles in WP, and is also cited as a source for various items of home entertainment news, such as under Movies Anywhere. Media Play News also produces the annual Home Media Awards, which receive widespread press coverage each year from such reputable news organizations as Market Watch, Yahoo Finance, and Benzinga. And publisher Thomas K. Arnold is all over the web thanks to stories he had authoried over the years for the Los Angeles Times, Variety, USA Today, the Hollywood Reporter and the San Diego Reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkarnold (talk • contribs) 15:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Tkarnold: Are you aware that notability is not inherited? Relationships with other notable entities doesn't make this publication notable. We need a 'keep' rationale that is grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Anachronist: Yes I am aware that notability is not inherited? But the other points I mentioned merit maintaining the page, specifically the growing list of articles citing Media Play News as a source both within the WP universe and outside. Virtually every day an article in Media Play News is cited in other publications ranging from Biz Journals to Variety, imdb.com and TV stations like WUSA9. A simple Google search will find dozens of outside references, thus meeting the notablity requirement (subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject).~Tkarnold (talk)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 05:10, 6 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Reichsführer-SS (film)[edit]

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

    A largely unsourced article on a nn film. Does not meet WP:NFILM; significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/OberRanks currently site-banned for fabricating content and sources. For more info, please see ANI:OberRanks_and_fabricated_sources. Has been previously PRODed, hence the AfD nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete The article only cites one very iffy source. Searching online doesn't turn up anything from reliable sources that establishes notability. This is just spam.45.64.242.124 (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete: I did a search on Google, but could only find one review of the film, published in the Dread Central[60] which unfortunately won't be enough to satisfy the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:Notability (films), in particular the "two full-length reviews" criterion. MBlaze Lightning 10:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I did some serious digging and found a review from HorrorNews.net, which is typically seen as a reliable source on here. Horror Society is generally seen as one - I know that it's been used as a source for information in some academic works on horror. That said, the sourcing could definitely be stronger but I think that there's just enough here to squeak by. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had seen that source as well, but wasn't sure if it would pass muster. I could switch my !vote to keep, but before pondering that possibility, I'd like to see a better source. MBlaze Lightning 06:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I frankly don't care very much what some WikiProject's ideas are about the number of "reviews" something needs to get, but this is clearly a completely marginal production with no documented impact beyond one or two niche websites. No echo in mainstream media at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Genre films are tricky. They absolutely need sourcing to establish notability, but restricting notability to only coverage in mainstream sourcing would do a huge disservice to Wikipedia and also undervalues the niche websites themselves. For example, while Dread Central is absolutely a niche website since they focus on horror, it's very major within the genre as they've won a major award in the horror world, host a film festival, give out major awards within the genre, and actually had their own movie studio. They're incredibly well respected in the horror film. Admittedly HorrorNews.net and Horror Society are less major but they're still seen as fairly important within the field and there have been academics who have used their articles as citations for scholarly publications put out through publishes such as McFarland and various university presses. To further argue the point, there are a lot of films that will really only garner genre coverage. They're seen as fairly notable as a whole, but are really only covered by the various horror outlets. Essentially, mainstream coverage alone is a poor indication of notability when it comes to genre and niche films. A complete lack of mainstream coverage can be telling, but a lack of mainstream coverage doesn't mean that something is non-notable. Basically, by this extension you could have a scholarly text receive about a dozen or more reviews from academic journals, but no coverage from mainstream press. By this standard, the book would be seen as non-notable despite having ample coverage in niche outlets. I'm not really arguing for notability for this film specifically since I do think it's borderline, but I do want to argue against the idea of mainstream press being the absolute yardstick of notability. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:59, 6 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. North America1000 16:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    YQG Rocks[edit]

    YQG Rocks (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 about a community hyperlocal news website, whose notability claims are not properly sourced. Right across the board, the footnotes here are to sources that do not support notability, such as routine business directory listings and the website's own self-published "about us" statement and a WordPress fansite and a tangential news story about somebody else which glancingly mentioned this website's existence in the process of not being about this website. None of the sourcing present here is cutting it at all in terms of making this notable enough for inclusion. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, no independent indepth coverage. The "made it onto the Top 100 Music Blogs list at blog and website search engine Technorati" sentence is especially damning with faint praise. --GRuban (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 05:06, 6 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. Those arguing to keep this article have not convincingly refuted the arguments presented against all of the sources produced so far. Vanamonde (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Augusto A. Lim[edit]

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

    Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to minor name checks, quotations and passing mentions. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability. North America1000 23:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as a general authority Lim is viewed as an arbiter of doctrine in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have added more sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – There is no guideline or policy that provides presumed notability for religious subjects or leaders, including Mormons. Subjects that the LDS church considers to be noteworthy are not automatically notable as per Wikipedia's standards. The sources added to the article consist of this passing mention which simply states the subject's name and this passing mention. Minor name checks such as this are not significant coverage, and do not qualify notability. North America1000 01:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have not responded to my most recent addition. I also remind people we have indepth coverage but you chose to set up the rules to ignore it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding those new additions, this contains one sentence about the subject, and this appears to be a passing mention. This is not significant coverage, and does not qualify notability. North America1000 01:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Unfortunately the only indepth coverage I can see is in LDS sources, and as he's an official of the LDS church, they aren't independent. --GRuban (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep A search in Google Books show significant coverage about the subject.[61][62][63][64] Rzvas (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The Ensign, an official Mormon publication, has what appears to be an official biography. Otherwise, I see no sources with even moderate depth. Rzvas's first two sources are passing mentions. The second two appear to be different legal discussions of the same event involving a check which Lim deposited or some such. Without the actual book, I presume there was a notable lawsuit involving Lim's check, but it doesn't seem likely to substantially improve Lim's notability. Daask (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the sources provided above by Rzvas are passing mentions, and do not provide significant coverage about the subject. North America1000 01:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • One more endorsing Daask's comments on Rzvas's sources. Doubling down, even. The first two are probably about this Augusto Lim, but are trivial mentions - one mention of the name in each whole book! The last two aren't even necessarily about the same Augusto Lim, since all they say is that this is a man who was somehow involved in a law case. --GRuban (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to General authority#General authority firsts. Proposals to exempt LDS leaders from the WP:GNG have consistently failed to achieve consensus support (see examples in 2014, 2016, and 2017), so the subject has to be evaluated under WP:GNG. For establishing notability, WP:GNG eliminates sources that are not independent under WP:IIS (Ensign) or not WP:RS ("Grampa Bill") from consideration. The sources that have been added in this discussion or mentioned above include routine or trivial mentions of the subject, do not reach the level of significant coverage, and in two cases are not verifiably about the subject of this article at all. Additional search does not find WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources, only routine coverage of church announcements and a few Deseret News pieces that are verbatim reprints from the official Church News and therefore not independent coverage under WP:IIS. There are some LDS leaders that pass WP:GNG, but this isn't one of them. Redirecting to General authority#General authority firsts, where information on subject is already provided, is a sensible alternative to deletion. Open to alternatives if in-depth coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 05:05, 6 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Tuynuy Academy F.C.[edit]

    Tuynuy Academy 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)

    Does not appear to meet the notability guideline. Only direct coverage by third-party sources are short clips by SMMTV (a satellite channel) introducing the facility and some of their activities.[65][66] Mentions of their participation in the Amateur League by other sources are all in passing. These do not constitute adequate in-depth coverage to satisfy the WP:GNG. Paul_012 (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I can't find any information on this team at all, at least in English. Didn't watch all five minutes, but the satellite television clips show youth teams. Also fails our general consensus for football club notability. SportingFlyer talk 06:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 08:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nomination. Govvy (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I also can't find anything about this team in reliable sources to support the GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:35, 13 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. Refs added by Bearcat confirm he meets NGRIDIRON. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ian Beckstead[edit]

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

    Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment subject meets criteria by WP:NGRIDIRON according to article he played eleven seasons in the CFL. But article lacks significant citations for verification of his eleven seasons on the CFL. Is there even an article here? Someone who played eleven season on the CFL league should have enough citations for a proper article in which case this article should be marked as a draft and improved upon. unless of course the eleven seasons on CFL is fabricated and in that case the article should be deleted. Freetheangels (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And yet there is a stunning lack of sources to be found to support this (that I can find.) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The man played before the Internet became a thing. If there are articles about him they are probably in printed media. There seems to be some trading cards of him floating around [67] and he's also to be found in some stat sites [68] - Dammit_steve (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep He clearly meets WP:NGRIDIRON and it's not even close. He played on two Grey Cup champions, was the 1988 CFL all star center, and won the award the same year for being the outstanding offensive lineman in the East Division. It's true that there's not a lot of coverage, but that's always true for offensive linemen--nobody gets less press than they do. Papaursa (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The article certainly needs improvement, but playing 11 seasons in the Canadian Football League, including two seasons on the Grey Cup championship team, and winning a freaking award most certainly is a GRIDIRON pass. Note as well that since his career took place mainly in the 1980s and early 1990s, the best sourcing would not be expected to turn up in a simple Google search — it'll require deep database searching for 30-year-old coverage, which is very plainly there as I get 317 hits on ProQuest which do indeed attest to a CFL player of this name. They won't all be spectacularly useful, but I've already added several to this article. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 10 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. Yunshui 雲水 08:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Pandemic (comics)[edit]

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

    Does not meet WP:GNG. Character appears seven times, according to Marvel Wikia, and is linked in five non-list non-disambiguation articles. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains(talk) 01:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:57, 6 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 and redirect to Venom (comic book)#Venom: Funeral Pyre (1993). Yunshui 雲水 08:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Pyre (character)[edit]

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

    Does not meet WP:GNG. Character appears in five issues according to Marvel Wikia, one of which is an encyclopedia, and three of which are the miniseries mentioned in the article. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge Minor character that is worth mentioning as part of List of Marvel Comics characters: P but lacks significance for own article Freetheangels (talk) 07:12, 6 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    SoundSpectrum[edit]

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

    Does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/65.96.232.215 as part of a promo walled garden that also includes Andy O'Meara who does not appear to be notable either. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong Delete This is just spam. None of the sources cited are reliable. I googled "SoundSpectrum" and didn't come up with anything that would establish its notability.Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    COMMENT According to the article the G-force software they created was used in Apple's I-tunes as well as in software developed by Microsoft and other companies for this reasons they might be considered notable? But this article should be improved. Freetheangels (talk) 08:45, 6 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Marquis Johnson (basketball)[edit]

    Marquis Johnson (basketball) (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:NHOOPS. Article relies heavily on three articles from the same author and publication, Sal Interdonato from the Times Herald-Record: Varsity845 Boys Basketball All-Stars and Johnson eager for his pro Ball debut cover the subject in fair depth, while Pine Bush’s Johnson growing up on the court has a lot of information. However, per GNG, "multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." There are no other reliable and independent sources providing ample coverage. Runningibis (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP for now He is a professional basketball player. What more is the team he plays on and the league he is in are based on a new concept of selecting players straight from high school. At least give him a chance his team and league less than a year old. If nothing new a year or so from now then delete. Freetheangels (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Kezo Brown, actually, was kept. This article seems to satisfy GNG with multiple significant sources, and it is a bit ridiculous to discount them just because they are by the same author. It is not a good in my opinion to keep nominating for deletion these JBA players whose articles are relatively well written and sourced. There are, actually, other sources besides the three that cover Johnson. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 12:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. The reasons for GNG treating "multiple publications from the same author or organization" as one make a lot of sense in this context. The idea behind GNG is to show some degree of broad interest. One person or one publication writing about the same topic over and over again doesn't show any more breadth of coverage than if they wrote a single article about the topic.Rlendog (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. The only significant coverage is from one publisher, his hometown newspaper Times Herald-Record. The rest are trivial mentions. WP:NHOOPS is not met by playing in LaVar Ball's fledgling Junior Basketball Association.—Bagumba (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not seeing the independent coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can certainly tell more sources are needed but how you would deny that he is a professional basketball player and article will be recreated? I think present coverage is more needed than WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Orientls (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply being a professional basketball player is not grounds for notability. Papaursa (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Local coverage and routine sports reporting are insufficient to meet WP:GNG and he clearly fails to meet WP:NHOOPS. Papaursa (talk) 17:09, 10 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_6&oldid=1142614924"