Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 August	8 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Procedural close. This article doesn't seem to ever have existed. The deletion log for "James Battiste" is empty. It's not clear what this nomination (which was malformed and never added to an AfD logpage) was supposed to be about, but it's not about James Battiste. (non-admin closure) jp×g 03:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Battiste[edit]

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

This person is listed as a political candidate and has not been elected to a major legislature. Being a candidate alone is not notable enough to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN and his work as an academic is not enough to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC Rockandrollradio (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Mercedez[edit]

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

BLP deletion request by the subject possibly satisfying WP:BLPDELETEREQUEST.[1] I offer no opinion on notability. Last AfD keep decision was in 2007. Since then the notability guidelines under WP:BIO have changed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. Subject is a public figure no eligible for BLPREQUESTDELETE. Subject has requested deletion not for any privacy interest but because accurate information about her career is inconsistent with her marketing plans for her personal trainer website. [2]. Wikipedia is not an online reputation scrubber. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete person has never been so notable that there is any reason to include an article on her against her own wishes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as irrespective of the request the subject does not pass WP:GNG with a lack of reliable sources coverage and the article is also promotional imv, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since, irrespective of possibly subject's own request to eliminate the text, the subject fails the now more stringent criteria for porn player notability. -The Gnome (talk) 05:42, 14 August 2019 (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) Rollidan (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Robinson-Walcott[edit]

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

Useless stub article that has been through PROD but never AFD. A fuller biography of the individual can be found here: [3] I see no evidence from this bio that she meets WP:PROF. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is it ‘useless’? Mccapra (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a little-known literary scholar. Not clear whether she has an affiliation with a university. Published 1 book, which got only 1 review on JSTOR. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I hope I can change E.M.Gregory's mind. There are more reviews of her work that I found on EBSCOhost and information about her in Project MUSE. She was also the editor of two scholarly journals. I've added more information to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Note to ivoters and closing administrator: E.M.Gregory is a blocked sock. Lightburst (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Weak keep. One book with published reviews isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF#C1, but her two stints as editor-in-chief of journals (each significant enough to have its own article) makes a plausible case for #C8. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is well known in Jamaica. The Jamaica Journal for which she has been editor in chief since 2004 is operated by the Institute of Jamaica and in 2018, she became the editor in chief of the University of the West Indies Caribbean Quarterly, adequate to meet PROF #8. Sufficient coverage to meet GNG as well.[4],[5],[6], [7],[8],[9],[10],[11] SusunW (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: reviews of the book (sample from Caribbean Quarterly: A Journal of Caribbean Culture) plus editorship pass the threshold of notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the sourcing and expansion by Megalibrarygirl and SusunW. Editorship of two notable journals certainly meets WP:PROF #8. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination effectively withdrawn, with no delete proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Her Secret[edit]

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

Insufficiently sourced. Couldn't find any sources. Lurking shadow (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not even the page number given of the book cited? Uncle G (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant any other sources.Lurking shadow (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let someone else deal with this text being the "© 2012 Loving The Classics. All Rights Reserved" text with a few words removed. Uncle G (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable cast, and sourced. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now Keep Enough WP:RS were found. Thanks to those who found them.Lurking shadow (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Fox[edit]

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

No evidence of notability provided. Hosted a non-notable show on a failed TV network. The only references provided are self-published. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when your sources are IMDb, twitter and a blog the person is not coming anywhere near passing the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JPL. Likely fan/vanity by SPA whose 2nd edit was to create this page. Agricola44 (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only RS I could find is this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is next to nothing there. -The Gnome (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Le Lann[edit]

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

She's only appeared in one movie which qualifies per WP:ONEEVENT and not WP:NACTOR. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete short of well written coverage showing how her film role advances the arguments of those who wish the defend the actions of Jeffery Epstein and the others committing sexual abuse of minors in his circle, I see nothing to justify having an article on her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, John Pack Lambert. I'm sorry but you are misrepresenting the role and the whole movie as well. In any case, this is not the place to express opinions on ongoing or even historical events. You could've simply referred to the "well written coverage of her role in one film." Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as WP:TOOSOON with only one significant role. May well be notable in the future but it seems too early at present, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2019 (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) 21:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EtosTV[edit]

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

It seems that this tv channel may never have gone live. Most coverage is PR from 2007 about a planned 2008 launch; this indicates that in 2009 it was still not live yet. After this date I can find no coverage. Conclusion: interesting idea that generated some chatter in 2007 but nothing that looks sufficient to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Mccapra (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Notability. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails even elementary criteria for notability. Nothing in the German Wikipedia either. -The Gnome (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2019 (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. If an individual clears WP:GNG, whether or not they meet WP:NPOL isn't relevant; with respect to GNG, SusunW's sources have not been convincingly refuted. There are language problems, but these are not egregious enough to require immediate deletion, and most of the promotional material could simply be dumped. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Neese[edit]

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

Political candidate for office who does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles for being candidates in elections they did not win, but this article is not properly demonstrating that she has preexisting notability for other reasons. It certainly thinks it is, because it's written like a résumé, but it's not reliably sourced for the purposes of demonstrating the notability of her career: it is referenced entirely to primary sources except for a single news article about her winning a minor local award that isn't a magic notability clincher all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though it is poorly written, that in itself is no reason for deletion. Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to confirm notability. There are 62,985 matches in newspapers.com alone, though admittedly many are brief mentions. Some of the weightier clips, include: President of the National Association of Women Business Owners 1990 -1997, White House lobbying for NAWBO, Appointment to SBA Council, Powerbroker for small business, Nomination to direct US Mint, Rejected Mint post, Involvement in the Women’s Business Ownership Act of 1988, Women's Empowerment program, Meets with VP Bush,National Public Policy Advocate of the Year, Elected to Consumer Alert Board, Induction National Women's Hall of Fame, business philosophy. And while her run for office and loss was not notable, the fact that she was the first woman nominated by a major party to run is. Shades of Ferraro and Clinton. SusunW (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW, I erred in not checking newspapers.com. I didn't know about newspaperarchive.com. I've seen enough to move to withdraw the nomination, but I can't as there is another delete vote. If Bearcat strikes their vote, I'll withdraw. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, SusunW. Could you please clarify your reference to "Ferraro and Clinton"? As to the many yet cumulatively insignificant mentions in the Daily Oklahoman, I have already addresses them in my own sugegstion below. -The Gnome (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree that it is very poorly written and needs lots of cleanup, but she has been inducted into both national and state-wide halls of fame, and has received many other awards, and as SusanW pointed out there is PLENTY of coverage to meet GNG. Tag it for cleanup, but do not delete. --Krelnik (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fails WP:NPOL but the sourcing independent of her campaign for Lt. Governor clearly demonstrates WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a bit of cleanup and hope the article reads a little better. Also added some sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SusunW Fails WP:NPOL but passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly promotional article. ALso if someone does not pass NPOL they need to pass notability for non-political reasons which she does not. In theory every politician could pass GNG, but we demand more for coverage on politicans because otherwise we would be turned into a platform for campaigns to disseminate information on candidates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She isn't a politician, she is a business woman and public policy advisor. She happened to run in one race in a long career and lost. It is only significant because she was nominated. SusunW (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW, she has been a political candidate, which makes NPOL relevant. (GNG supersedes it, yes.) – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu, we'll have to disagree on that point. Lots and lots of people run as candidates never to run again. Lots of people do notable things which have nothing to do with politics. If their notability stems from something else entirely, holding them to a standard for one facet of their career is not logical. SusunW (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW, no, I think we agree, we're just talking past each other a little bit. If she meets GNG, it doesn't matter that she doesn't meet NPOL. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment I want to delete this article - it's written promotionally/like a resume - but while she fails WP:NPOL, she does appear to pass WP:GNG on other grounds, though a lot of the newspapers.com coverage above are WP:MILLish they do show she has been recognised in some pretty important positions. The article desperately needs some WP:TNT as it is promotional, though, so I entirely understand the delete !votes. SportingFlyer T·C 07:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Switching from a keep !vote to a comment, which while a pretty weak thing to do represents my neutrality - while I think this will be kept, I'm persuaded by The Gnome's analysis, and I still think this needs WP:TNT - but not going to switch to a delete !vote since I still think there's a chance of a good, reliably sourced article coming out of this. SportingFlyer T·C 20:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. The "many newspapers" invoked by Keep supporters are generic reports by the Daily Oklahoman, e.g. the list of 1982 the inductees in the Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame; a small item about a non profit outfit appointing a news co-chairs, one of whom is our subject; a clipping about women from Oklahoma attending an int'l conference, with the focus on someone else, named Debra Murray, and not the subject; a news item about president George W. Bush supposedly wanting to name her Director of the Mint, small item, which never happened; and a list of "business people," among whom is our subject. And that's it! There is truly nothing to support notability. -The Gnome (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2019 (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) 21:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Boylan[edit]

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

Political candidate for office who does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. I would be okay with a redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in New York in place of deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future election primaries, but this is not demonstrating or sourcing any credible evidence that she had preexisting notability for other reasons prior to the candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG now every primary candidate cannot have an article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform to publish campaign literature. If she wins the election in 2020 she will be notable, not until then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. I wish there were a longer season for not having to deal with potential American legislators. SportingFlyer T·C 07:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this badly written brochure. -The Gnome (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people will not be counted as notable just for participating in elections. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Westgarth[edit]

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

Subject narrowly fails WP:NHOCKEY. As the article states he played 183 regular season games in the AHL and including playoff games he played a total of 194 games, leaving him six games short of passing #2. No preeminent honours listed to pass #3 or #4 either. Tay87 (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - fails NHOCKEY --Spacepine (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG. Also, bound to be no more than a sentence or two transcribed from a statistical source. There has to be enough to produce a readable narrative. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not meet WP:GNG . Alex-h (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Game of Dice[edit]

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

No citation to support, all based on original research. Wefk423 (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or possibly Merge to Kurukshetra War which this event set off. This perhaps reads like a Game of Thrones spoof... But it is much older lore. This is covered in sources - e.g. this book, [12], [13], [14]. Icewhiz (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete contains original research. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This recounts a significant incident in the Mahabarata, one of the two great Indian epic poems. It is thus not WP:OR, but has a source, which ought to be cited. The extent to which the epic is history and the extent to which it is myth is debatable, but its existence cannot be denied. I would be happier if this were about dice games more generally, but the antiquity of dice games is only covered very briefly in that article. Perhaps the problem is that we do not really know a lot about what games were played with dice in antiquity. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OR issues. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's completely unsourced and a glaring exhibit of personal work. But Wikipedia is not the apothecary of random-people's writing. -The Gnome (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UICC configuration[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Guy Macon (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 14:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GlobalPlatform (2nd nomination). --Guy Macon (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. It's an unsourced text and the work of a kamikaze account who's possibly related to the product, since they sign as "GlobalPlatform." -The Gnome (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Malazdrewicz[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:NHOCKEY. He never played in the NHL, so obviously fails #1. He played a total of 174 games in the AHL and IHL and 200 is needed to pass #2, so fails. The CHL which ran from 1963 to 1984 is listed among the leagues for #3, but the subject has no preeminent honours in that league. According to Hockey Draft Central, he was a Second Team All-Star in the IHL and First Team All-Star is required to pass #3 in the stated leagues. Then comes the obvious points of not playing in college, not being a first round draft pick and not playing in a world championship which fails the rest. Tay87 (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Convex Interactive Pvt Ltd.[edit]

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

Article previously deleted as G11, recreated shortly afterwards. No sourcing about the subject approaching WP:CORPDEPTH in the article or available online, just WP:ROUTINE announcements, directory listings and the like. Fails WP:NCORP. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the very reason I added the G11 on the original article. The user went ahead and recreated it without addressing any of my concerns. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 22:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam about a non-notable digital marketing agency (surprise!). MER-C 17:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Sharipova[edit]

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

Placing in the Top 25 of a pageant isn’t notable, it’s nowhere near winning. As for her modeling career there is no way to properly vet these jobs. Being in the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show is nice and all... yet when that’s reported on, 50 girls are grouped together in lists of 50 girls that never offer substantive career information. With my rudimentary knowledge of Russian I couldn’t find anything and the Russian article didn’t offer reliable sources either. Is this the best that’s out there? Why is Blogspot referenced? Trillfendi (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete people who did not win a national pageant are not notable, those who did it is not always clear they are either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely in agreement with John Pack Lambert and it appears to be promotional. Nickmeister066 (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nominator is gently reminded to refresh their memory about WP:BEFORE. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental health policy[edit]

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

Reads like an essay, non-notable original research JMHamo (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as original research.~~ It was built almost entirely by two student editors taking the same class in March 2017. I am sure they had nothing but good faith, but students often think they are writing a paper. ~~I don't think the article can be salvaged as a stub, since I don't think the topic is distinct enough from similar topics to have any notability.~~ -Crossroads- (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per discussion below. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a valid topic and ordinary editing can fix the faults. Bearian (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the nomination that is junk. This is not a personal essay because there's nothing about the authors' experiences or personal opinions. It's not OR because this is not a novel topic and there are plenty of sources. The topic is clearly notable because there are entire books written about it such as Environmental Health Policy or Environmental Policy and Public Health. The usual policies apply: WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:BITE, WP:CENSOR, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – as Andrew notes above, there is a wealth of verifiable sources that discuss environmental health policy. The above sources, and notable organizations including the WHO and CDC, treat the topic as a distinct subject focusing on specific human health aspects, and the subject may be treated as a notable subtopic of environmental health. While it may read like an essay, the statements are at least supported by numerous journal articles that distinguish the page from the original research and personnel essay tenets of WP:NOTESSAY. TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 21:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it seems that it is a topic on which a decent article can be built. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems to be more suitable than deletion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good work by students. My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't believe we didn't have an article on such a clearly notable topic before 2017. Ye Gods, the environmental coverage within Wikipedia is even more dire than I thought!. This is so clearly a notable topic, and of course needs a link from the Environmental health article as well as needing a new redirect from Environmental health action plan Done. 4.4 million hits on Google and so many obvious sources that show this meets WP:GNG. I don't mean to be (too) rude, but a trout to the nominator (Crossroads1), who I genuinely urge to read WP:BEFORE lest you do further potential damage to this encyclopaedia in areas you don't understand. Oh, and a barnstar to the student editors who did a pretty fair job. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mmkay, how about a trout for Nick Moyes, for thinking I nominated this for deletion? And for scolding me, when I asked for expert attention on the article. Just because someone !votes in a way you disagree with does not mean they should be accused of being damaging. At any rate, I struck my delete above. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Self-trout Yep, clumsy of me. A trout well-deserved. Please accept My sincere apologies, Crossroads1, for misreading the nomination and thinking youd made it. I am terribly sorry for that, and thank you for being so polite about my mistake (and for striking your !vote, too). Nick Moyes (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apology warmly accepted. And, I admit this particular AfD !vote of mine was not researched like it should have been. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:23, 14 August 2019 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amorous Professor Cherry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. All the references in the article are WP:PRIMARY (first 3 from the publisher, and the last 3 from the developer). Nothing found in a search besides listings, forums, fan blogs and passing mentions (with an exception of [15] but that one is of questionable reliability per WP:VG/RS, and the author who wrote the article doesn't seem to have any credentials). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Nsk92 (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Capak[edit]

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

The subject seems to be a fairly prolific academic - lots of publications in good journals, and some quotes in general media. The trouble is I can't find any writing about him in any independent sources at all. It's not clear where the biographical information in this article is coming from - almost none of it is sourced, and some of it (e.g. his being science lead at SPHEREx) is not mentioned in his own CV. Issues with the current content notwithstanding, I'm not sure that he clearly meets WP:NPROF, and he doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, and whatever information we write about him would have to come from affiliated sources because no independent sources are available. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, but please see comments below. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep GS h-index of 95 [16] allows him to meet WP:PROF#C1 with flying colors. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK IntoThinAir, I'm minded to withdraw the nomination based on that argument, but the lack of any independent sources gives me pause. Is it acceptable to write the article based on his profiles at institutions he's connected with (which he presumably wrote himself)? I can find nothing in the way of independent sourcing giving biographical information. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-read WP:BLPSELFPUB, which indicates that we can indeed use self-published material if it's neutrally written etc. I may end up self-trouting here, if others are happy that he meets NPROF, and that are article is exclusively written using material he likely wrote himself (albeit probably factual and probably above board), then I'm happy to withdraw the nom. I do think the article needs a bit of work though in terms of sourcing. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added external references per Girth Summit's recommendation Commofc (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IntoThinAir and WP:PROF#C1. The ridiculously high h-index includes some works with many authors but keeping only the first-author papers from his Scholar profile still gives citation counts 795, 250, 231, 149, 131, ..., enough to convince me of a pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above !votes. It needs going over with the de-promotionalizer, but that's a matter of ordinary editing, not grounds for deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree: subject notable, but article should be de-puffed a little. Agricola44 (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw OK, it's clear that others are satisfied that he meets WP:NPROF, so I'm happy to withdraw this nomination. I would appreciate some guidance from me learned colleagues about what we put into the article, given the apparent dearth of independent sources - are we all happy with using his CV and/or profiles on his employers' websites? Thoughts from IntoThinAir, David Eppstein, [[User:XOR'easter|]], Agricola44 and any closing admin would be appreciated. GirthSummit_(blether) 23:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- CVs are fine for uncontroversial factual information ("He then earned a masters in astronomy in 2002, and a Ph.D. in astronomy in 2004 both from the University of Hawaii.") but should not be used for evaluation or opinion ("His research focuses on using physical modeling and advanced statistical methods" ... "a leading member" ... "a novel way of estimating"). So much of the article needs to be trimmed or re-sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, appreciate the guidance. I'm happy for this to be closed as keep; I may try to find time to trim the article tomorrow, if no-one beats me to it. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:55, 11 August 2019 (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. Fenix down (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andoni Ugarte[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. MYS 77 ^✉ 16:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 16:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 16:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 16:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep fails WP:NFOOTY but may scrape through WP:GNG is currently playing for a WP:FPL team this season have added references in particular this states Ugarte will be a first team player Note only contested a WP:BLPPROD as it had a source.There is some coverage in Spanish newspapers 1 ,2 ,3 ,4 and 5 and there is a article in Spanish Wikipedia .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - probably meets GNG. Giant Snowman 07:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Marginally so because of the independent coverage sourced. As GiantSnowman says, this means the article probably meets the GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – marginal GNG pass with [17] [18] [19] Thx to POTWizards for bringing the sources. – Levivich 21:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I think this is a WP:TOOSOON - while I think it's likely this will get kept and he will probably appear for Real Oviedo at some point, I want to put this !vote on the record for the future in case he never ends up playing a first team match. SportingFlyer T·C 01:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe the Mundo Deportivo articles represent significant coverage and get this article over the GNG line. Jogurney (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2019 (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 Merge. Per WP:ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OPSkins[edit]

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

Fringe notability. Don't think OPSkins quite meets GNG. HoverVan (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skin gambling. --Masem (t) 16:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Skin gambling per Masem. An interesting footnote in the subject if anything, though not independently notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:39, 7 August 2019 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Bingo Day[edit]

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

Not notable. Single source that mentions "International Bingo Day" is a suspect website that, based on Wayback, was only just created today and does not appear to be a reliable source. The remainder of the article (history of the game) is already covered in the existing Bingo (U.S.) article. Kuru proposed deletion 1 August; article creator removed the prod when adding this source. Schazjmd (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as above, only source given that mentions the concept is a crappy wordpress campsite barely six days old. Didn't find anything else. Kuru (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable. In anycase, I can't see why it would be notable. Anybody can make up a day about anything but we wouldn't have an article on it per WP:NOTMADEUP.Polyamorph (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is page that seems to be made up as their is a National Bingo Day but that is only for America. HawkAussie (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crispin Pailing[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Non notable clergyman and author Dom from Paris (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ local coverage New Rector of Liverpool relishes his fresh challenge in city with 'a real buzz about it'; 39-year-old dad-of-two is the parish's youngest rector since 1949, ~~I do not see a claim to notability.~~ Many rectors are wonderful, but few are notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Another NN clergyman. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think he is a notable priest and that he falls in line with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. He has appeared in national news so I think that Crispin Pailing is a worthy inclusion.J.K.McBrine. Per note below, this user is a confirmed sock of Ivor Browning

User:J.K.McBrine. It would be very useful if you can bring examples of national news coverage of his work and career to this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - ordinary parish priest, albeit of a notable church. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
rethinking As rector of Liverpool's Anglican parish church, Pailing is called the Rector of Liverpool and presides official civic ceremonies; reminder: England has an established church. So there is a lot of stuff along the lines of, Liverpool marks Merchant Navy Day with special service and wreath laying ceremony. The Rector of Liverpool, the Revd Dr Crispin Pailing, will lead the service, 'Homeless Jesus' sculpture coming to Liverpool. The sculpture will be unveiled as part of a Conference organised by Liverpool Parish Church... There is space for you to sit on the bench: would you choose to sit next to a homeless person? Would you sit on a bench next to Jesus? – Revd Canon Dr Crispin Pailing, Rector of Liverpool, Queen Elizabeth sails into Liverpool on Monday 23rd July and we want to give her a big Scouse welcome (the cruise ship, not the monarch) will be marked by a special service at Liverpool Parrish Church led by the Rector of Liverpool the Revd Dr Crispin Pailing. In the congregation will be civic dignitaries, including the Lord Mayor of Liverpool, the Master of Queen Elizabeth Captain Aseem Hashmi and ..., Graves of Muslim sailors who joined allies in WWII are rediscovered; Burial places of 11 Indonesians given new headstones during ceremony in Liverpool cemetery were they had been forgotten... On Thursday, the forgotten graves were rededicated in a special service conducted by the rector of Liverpool, the Rev Dr Crispin Pailing, with Islamic prayers said by Imam Waddah Saleh of the Abdullah Quilliam Society.", and many more along those lines.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition there is news coverage about his activities. Major parish probably makes him notable, sourcing looks promising. Page creator, a new editor, could be encouraged - I'll get back to this in a day or two.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC) E.M.Gregory (talk)[reply]

Delete the coverage is local news stuff, that we expect for any local official, it does not rise to the level of showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete -- There is a fair amount of national news coverage that mentions Pailing in his work as Rector of Liverpool (e.g. on the BBC News website: Trap door reveals Liverpool church 'time capsule', 'Liverpool plinth' set to host sculpture every year, Lusitania sinking centenary marked by memorial services), but he is not the subject of the articles. It seems a shame to delete a well-written (if somewhat promotional) article like this, but at present he does not hold a notable-enough position in the CoE and has not done anything notable beyond his duties as a parish priest to warrant keeping. Hopefully the article can be resurrected in a few years time if he moves up the church hierarchy. BabelStone (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep He does appear in national news and on national television many times. I think that this and all of his civic and interfaith work puts him on a par with an archdeacon (a post which normally receives a Wikipedia article). Ivor Browning (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Ivor Browning (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Note to closing Admin - Ivor Browning seems to be a Master Sock of the two other socks who also Ivoted on this page. See sockpuppet investigation here and the checkuser comment below. Striking this Ivote ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that being of a notable parish which has notable things does make him a candidate for a Wikipedia article. I also think that the Art that he has brought to Liverpool is of a high standard and notable. The art he has brought includes Homeless Jesus and he organised the Liverpool Plinth. William McFarlane (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC) Per note below, this user is a confirmed sock of Ivor Browning [reply]
User:BabelStone, I grant that the page is overstuffed with parish doings, but I would say that Crispin Pailing#Support for public art is "notable beyond his duties as a parish priest".E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the shenanigans of Ivor Browning which have rather soured my view of this article, I would be happy to be convinced that Pailing's support for public art does make him notable. From what I've read Pailing mostly seems to be mentioned incidentally in connection with public art in Liverpool, but he is not the subject any coverage at the national level. BabelStone (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BabelStone, I would like to apologise for my awful behaviour with the proposed deletion of this page. Naturally, I felt annoyed and hurt as this is my first page. I would like to reiterate this apology to everyone and hope that my irresponsible actions have not changed the result of this discussion. Ivor Browning (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis of sources needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 13:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: J.K.McBrine. and William McFarlane are Confirmed socks of Ivor Browning.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

regretfully delete: BabelStone put it nicely. And JP Lambert already said what I was going to say. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't really buy into the discussion of whether Pailing's activities make him notable. The standard is whether the coverage establishes notability. In this case, for me, it does not. Leaving aside the non-independent sources such as his school, his churches etc, we are left with little other than an announcement in the local paper of him taking up his post (which is entirely routine for a parish priest), him being quoted in connection with local events and services (again entirely routine for someone in his position), and the articles about the art where again he is simply being quoted. Parish priests are inevitably going to be used as a local/community voice in local stories, especially if it's something that is a particular interest of theirs, so it's hardly surprising to see his name pop up all over the place, but it's not enough to establish notability. Hug^syrup 12:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The nominator is correct this subject fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NAUTHOR and fails WP:GNG. The clergyman is not notable. Lightburst (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that being a part of a major church makes him notable. In addition, his support for public art in Liverpool, which appears to be notable and it features in other articles. He also meets the criteria for high profile people (which for some reason I now can't find!) and so I think that he is suitable for a Wikipedia article. Nickmeister066 (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC) — Nickmeister066 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. Subject has been at AfD for two weeks and is still completely unsourced. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dark City (magazine)[edit]

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

Russian music magazine. Significance is unclear.--Сергей Саханский (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 07:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 13:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No references in the article, and none found. While the magazine is in Russian, the title is in English. Their Facebook page lists a few stores where it is sold, which suggests there is not wide circulation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Night[edit]

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

Fails NFILM. BEFORE search comes up with nothing other than IMDb entries and one user review on Rotten Tomatoes. No sourcing at all on article, quite clearly exists but no third party reviews or content can be found. Nightfury 13:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no needed coverage. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't seem to have a clear primary topic. Barca (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability and sourcing issues. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2019 (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 7icons. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Tee[edit]

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

Although I appreciate learning that this singer "dated a very handsome, handsome man" (while randomly changing gender throughout the text), I don't see sufficient evidence of notability outside her former pop group (7icons). Almost all of the discography and minor film roles seem to be bound up with her group membership. This should be redirected to 7icons, as was already attempted four times. It would be nice to come to a conclusion that sticks this time. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - restore redirect to 7icons. No notability outside the group. No in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources about this particular singer herself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's because it is a machine translation of id:Angel Tee from Indonesian, and Roseirena (talk · contribs) is not a native English speaker and does not have the facility with English to notice when the translation is wrong. Roseirena's argument against redirection, as best that I can translate it, is that the subject has not been involved with that group for half a decade, now. Uncle G (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per recommended by Elmide. Also, notability doesn't get carried over between the different languages wikipedia. Also, recommending an indefinite edit/move lock on the page once the redirection is done. robertsky (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota select volleyball club[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as required by WP:NTEAM. Collaboratio (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kablammo (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No references, and none would be expected for a junior league team. Promotional tone as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:54, 14 August 2019 (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. Any move discussion can be on the talk page (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Li Xinyi - Rex[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSINGER Collaboratio (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe a WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NSINGER. Bondegezou (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per Zanhe showing the single has charted, meets WP:SINGER, so keep. Bondegezou (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to Li Xinyi (I've reverted a copy-and-paste move). His new single "Dream with Me" charted on Billboard China at No. 11 (now at #38), see [20]. Meets WP:SINGER #2. -Zanhe (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:MBIO #2 and I did expand and added sources on the article. Cheers 103.200.134.149 (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2019 (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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chairmen of the Supreme Soviet of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic[edit]

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

A list of holders of a position we don't even have an article for. Fails the guidelines for stand-alone lists. Collaboratio (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They don't all need their own articles. A list can exist for more than just navigation, it can assist because its a valid topic. Just like we have List of Speakers of the United States House of Representatives and many other such articles. Lists of those who held a notable office are quite common and very encyclopedic. Dream Focus 13:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List of people who are all clearly notable and should have articles, whether or not anyone has written one yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. Mccapra (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is very important that Wikipedia includes list of high-ranking government politicians. There are articles about three of the office-holders. No need to delete such an article. I created it and is very well sourced. --Mbakkel2 (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Individuals would most probably pass WP:NPOL (even if we don't have articles at present) making this a plausible list of notable people. The position is of some note. Icewhiz (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:NPOL and WP:LISTN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is clearly a notable position, even if a lot of the potential articles are currently redlinks. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly a notable position. A rough equivalent in today's world would be e.g. a list of lieutenant governors of a US state. Daß Wölf 02:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Bondegezou (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Cadène[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC Collaboratio (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Moderate GS record, although citations would generally be expected to be lower in his field. Note: highest-cited publication in GS is attributed to someone else. This may be a book of individually-authored chapters, but did not check. SPA-created does not help the case here. Agricola44 (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to lean more towards delete now. It is important to recognise that NSEASONS does not guarantee notability of any season, and the fact the other stuff exists is also not a reasonable argument. There is the possibility that this season might be notable by the end of it, but it has only just started ad so it is impossible to tell right now, and no indication that any presumption of notability should be employed. I'm happy t restore later in the season if GNG can be shown. Fenix down (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 FC Universitatea Cluj season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS as this team does not play in the top professional league and fails WP:NOTSTATS Dom from Paris (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because a club is not playing in the top-division of a country, doesn't make the article useless. In fact, they are playing in the 2nd tier of Romanian football. Instead of deleting it, we should improve it similarly to other season articles about football clubs. We have some season articles about teams in non-league English football. Why should we delete this article about a random club in Romania, if we are not going to delete those? KingSkyLord (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being useful is not a criteria on wikipedia. A telephone directory is useful, a user manual for a telephone is useful, a pair of scissors is useful but they do not belong in an encyclopedia. All the information on that page was copied from one source which is where someone looking for that useful information would go to first. Could you tell us which policy/guideline/essay you are using to back up your keep !vote? Dom from Paris (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW I totally agree with you and would urge you to nominate the articles you mention. I nominated this one because it was on the new pages feed. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a random Romanian football club, they are a notable one and among the most popular in the country. I think they deserve a season article even if they are not playing in the top league at the moment. And the article doesn't have more sources because the seasons has not even started yet, all the gameboxes will have a report, and so will the other sections in the article (attendances, appearances, transfers etc.) once there is data to populate them with. mihai.zamfir30 07:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember this is not just a vote based on preference but on policy and guidelines. Can you please state what your !vote is based on. --Dom from Paris (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Instead of wanting to delete an article on a second tier football team, we should be looking to create articles on more football teams around the world to keep the public informed about these smaller teams which could later become big teams up there with the likes of Barcelona, Real Madrid, Manchester City etc. Universitatea Cluj actually only just missed out last season on being promoted to the top tier. This season they may succeed. Anything is possible with football so the argument that this article is useless wouldn't be accepted if Universitatea Cluj rises to become a title-winning champion. It has been a champion in the past and can be again. Furthermore, I think it would be highly disrespectful to disconsider a club with such rich history just because it's from Romania and not a well-known country like England or the United States. Why is it that there are season pages on non-league English clubs? They won't get much attention in the press and so would fail with a greater likelihood. ajudge149 08:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Ajudge149 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

I absolutely agree with that there is no reason to take into account the country from which this club comes from. You seem to be suggesting that my nomination is biased, I hope this isn't the case because it most certainly isn't and you should always assume good faith. The comment below may seem biased but I think the editor is stating a fact that 2nd tier clubs from Romania will get far less attention in the press and so fail WP:GNG. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I stating the truth, unless you can get some references so that it will be able to pass WP:GNG, I will be sticking with my vote. Also it would fail WP:FPL as Liga II is not a professional league. HawkAussie (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is mainly useless as the second tier of Romanian football doesn't really get much media attention compared to say the first division of this country. May I also bring up this page too for the discussion as they were still in division two last season. HawkAussie (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 2018–19 FC Universitatea Cluj season
  - @HawkAussie, there is currently a season article for every 2017-18 Liga II club. Should we delete all of those as well? I personally don't think so. KingSkyLord (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @KingSkyLord: If those articles pass WP:GNG then yes they can say, but if not then yeah I suggest deleting them as Liga II isn't a professional league under the WP:FPL guidelines. HawkAussie (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Liga II is a fully professional league. The list from WP:FPL is incomplete, Liga II wasn't featured there because nobody had added it, but I added it now.mihai.zamfir30 14:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        From what I can gather from the google translation of this document not all players have to be professional but those that are need to have a proper contract. I have reverted the addition and asked for it to be discussed first on the talk page as this subject has already been brought up. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence this passes WP:GNG, severe lack of sources. Giant Snowman 09:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable club in a notable league. If we have articles for xy clubs in England, of course we can have for one of the biggest clubs in Romania. Tons of sources in Romanian. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC) — Ludost Mlačani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Ludost Mlačani: Well if you are going to go ahead and add those suitable references for the page then this can possibly pass WP:GNG. Also if the team is "notable" then why has it not won a Romanian title because I when I think of biggest clubs, I also think of titles that they have won. But with only one cup title in their trophy cabinet, then that isn't a "big club". HawkAussie (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Universitatea Cluj have been in the top flight in the past and have won league titles even if they were not champions of Romania. Therefore they have more than just a cup title in their trophy cabinet. Maybe we should delete all clubs currently not playing in the top flight or that haven't won titles? There are many 'notable' clubs with season pages that haven't won any titles and have never played in the top flight. Delete those too if you want to delete this article. ajudge149 13:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The topic is notable and we should be able to have an article on it as this team will receive independent secondary press coverage throughout the course of the 2019–20 season, but the page as it stands now violates WP:NOTSTATS/WP:GNG. It needs to be improved before it can be in mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 23:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge or Draftify As the season doesn't have much content currently, it could be made into draft form or merged with FC Universitatea Cluj. Ivor Browning (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)~~ Sockstrike – Levivich 22:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: the keep votes don't really stack up to much in terms of presenting reliable sourcing for GNG, but there doesn't yet seem to be an alternative path,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can see the article fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. The second div in the Romanian league isn't in the WP:FPL list as fully pro. Govvy (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just want to point out yet again that WP:NSEASONS is not exclusionary and any season which gets covered in independent secondary media should be eligible for an article, if properly referenced, which this one isn't. SportingFlyer T·C 21:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – If we have no reliable independent secondary sources upon which to base an article, we shouldn't have that article. We shouldn't have a separate page about a season just to display stats for that season, per NOTSTATS. This is what our guidelines GNG and NSEASONS say, and applied here, they suggest this page should be deleted. – Levivich 22:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bro Code[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTURBANDICTIONARY. Seems like a glorified dicdef that doesn't have evidence of standalone notability. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK (yes - this actually got published - google books - in German too). Coverage here - [21], other use of "bro code" - [22], [23]. Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the book is called "The Bro Code". So, please note if your keep vote includes moving the article to that title and removing any info that isn't related to the book. Since the current article is about the concept, WP:NBOOK doesn't really apply._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG and has content (and potential for more content) beyond a dicdef. Bondegezou (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anitha Karthikeyan[edit]

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

Biography of a living person that is poorly sourced and questionable notability Sociable Song (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability. --Harshil169 (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has won a number of notable awards such as Murchi Music Awards and has won a number of television singing competitions and therefore passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 9 (only one criteria needed), thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a look at the article after I listed it for deletion. I see that you added an award to her section, written in bold. Please add a source for it too. If it happens that the person in question has many names like nicknames, it would be nice to state that. Sociable Song (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I haven't edited the article at all, it's the same as when you nominated it. The award is linked to the page about the awards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just edited it to add a reference for the Mirchi Music Award where she is referred to as Anita, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete the subject doesnt have WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Most of the coverage comes from non RS, and coverage from RS is mentions. Thus the subject fails general notability criteria. The subject also fails WP:NSINGER: the subject hasnt won any major awards. Having a catchy title, or a big region's name a part of the title doesnt make an award notable. Same goes for shows, and competitions. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dickinson Valley[edit]

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

Questionable notability and poorly sourced (one primary source). Sociable Song (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It has sufficient notability, but i'am leaning toward to fail WP:NGEO. Sheldybett (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete not enough to seperate it out from McMurdo's dry valleys nor is it noted as being significant in the parent article. Fails WP:NGEO NealeFamily (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that was a secondary source. I've cited the New Zealand Gazette for you now. Compared to the amount of effort for Falkie Atoll (AfD discussion), being able to rapidly lay one's hands on a source with the official name and location is a joy. ☺ Absent a suitable merger location, which would probably be a table of these valleys with notes such as whom they are named after, I think that we should keep this, remembering the remit to incorporate a gazeteer and giving a slight pass to an officially named place in Antartica, albeit with a view towards merger as I mentioned. No use of the administrator deletion tool is necessary, though. Uncle G (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There does not seem to be anything that makes this valley notable outside being one of the dry valley's and therefore would seem to be more appropriately incorporated into the article. NealeFamily (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to explicitly favor deletion over redirection. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace Watson Award[edit]

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

Student travel award at an Oxford college established in 2001, fails GNG. TSventon (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect: to University of Oxford. Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as nominator): I would recommend deletion rather than redirecting as article content is not encyclopedic. (Almost?) all Oxford colleges have travel grant schemes but they do not need to be included in college articles. TSventon (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic. But in the unlikely event that we end up merging or redirecting it should go to St Catherine's College, Oxford rather than the University. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as nominator):I suggest that the closing administrator evaluate this discussion as an expired proposed deletion, as recommended by WP:RELIST. TSventon (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. A Delete, Keep and Weak Keep are not enough to form a consensus and after three weeks it's time to lower the curtain on this discussion. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jubilee Garden (Hong Kong)[edit]

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

non notable per WP:NBUILD viz ✦ 17:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. viz ✦ 17:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. viz ✦ 17:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Have some WP:GNG passing news coverage regarding the dispute between landlord and the residents who owned the units. The dispute was quite covered in the newspaper (and current affair TV program, if i remember right.) Matthew hk (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, like was decided in similar, simultaneous-running AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allway Gardens, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/26 Nathan Road, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoho Town, all about huge housing tower complexes in Hong Kong that are each bigger than many if not most countries in population and whose construction was big enough to noticeably change the world's gravitational field and rotational speed. For this like the others, there are surely sources, if any diligent editor like User:Cunard chooses to go get them by digging through difficult-for-your-average-editor-like-me sources, but since we know that there do exist sources, there's no need to go through that drill. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP and wp:GEOFEAT (these are not natural features but they are so big they change the weather, effectively are geo features). --Doncram (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC) 21:28, 11 August 2019 (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 Night Shades. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1Nite (One Night)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability standard for a single or a song; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Singles MurielMary (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - there is some coverage specifically for the song, at least as parts of other reviews, however WP:NSINGLE refutes that as coverage (oddly, but oh well). But I also think it's an unneeded CONTENTFORK, as noted as a possibility within NSINGLE, and a clearer cut argument. It's already got some coverage, but the review could be added in. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: There does not appear to be enough coverage to support an independent article, but it is a viable search term so a redirect back to the album would be helpful for users trying to find information about the song. Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The weight of PAG argument is pretty solidly in favor deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Say No More (Les Dudek album)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced and not notable. Sociable Song (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep: this album did make the Billboard 200, although it peaked at a relatively lowly number 107 on June 25, 1977 [24] (this is the following week's Billboard where it is placed at number 166, but you can see the previous week's peak of 107 next to it). It also received a brief review in Billboard on its release in April 1977 [25], and there is another review in the October 2007 issue of Record Collector when the album was reissued along with Dudek's self-titled debut [26]. I know a low chart position and two short reviews may not be enough to convince all editors, but Dudek was by no means a nobody – he got his major label deal with Columbia Records after becoming one of the most highly-respected blues-rock session guitarists of the early 1970s, playing with the Allman Brothers Band (he plays on "Jessica", one of the group's best known tracks), and on Silk Degrees by Boz Scaggs and Fly Like an Eagle by the Steve Miller Band, two of the biggest-selling albums of the year prior to this record coming out, as well as being in the touring band for both artists. Given his pedigree, and the fact his debut album certainly did receive some reviews in the music press, I'm inclined to think there might well be more coverage for this album in the music press of the time. The articles for all of Dudek's albums are currently in an abysmal state, but I have a suspicion that all would pass WP:NALBUM if the sources can be found. Richard3120 (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NALBUM. The musician himself may be notable enough for Wikipedia, but his own notability does not confer article rights to everything he creates. -The Gnome (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2019 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prakhar Gupta[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist. Sources consist of links to his articles and 2-3 author profiles, none of the sources establishes notability. No in-depth coverage directly about him or his work. A Google search also revealed no promising hits.

Note: there seem to be at least one or two other public "Prakhar Gupta" out there on Google - several false (or unclear) positives in Google Search. GermanJoe (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable news analyst. Self published article were used as ref . And this is possibly an autobiography. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject fails general notability guidelines, as well as notability guidelines for journalists. Me too suspect of it as being an autobiography. At the least; it is COI given the creator's username (also an SPA), and subject's connection with "The Diplomat". Subject was a kid when the article was created. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:, The subject does not pass WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2019 (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 08:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheGamer[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:WEB. Google News search shows only press-releases which don't establish notability. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Wow (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they appear to publishing more than press releases so I am not sure it qualifies. Lets try to get some more sources onto this article. Starspotter (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | comment _ 02:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete We need more sources on this page and it is not really notable enough. Ivor Browning (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I would prefer to keep the article, I read news on the website every so often, it's pretty well known in the industry. I am surprised this article isn't better than this, but at the moment GNG is really weak. Govvy (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Lets try to get some more sources onto this article" is not a valid rationale or grounded in policy or guidelines on Wikipedia. Like Govvy has said (and is pretty much a Delete argument, rather than a Keep one), the subject fails WP:GNG because it lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources and that is what matters, not whether we think it's well known or not (for example Hardcore Gamer and GameZone both got deleted but are often used as references for video game article). References in the article represent press releases in Valdosta and Financial Post, with listings on 1 other websites and a primary references to Valnet and the website itself (with passing mention to be found in searches). Sadly the website isn't notable for Wikipedia standards, at least not now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original statement was "Google News search shows only press-releases", which was I think not the case. There does seem to be some secondary sources, which I added in a brief search. It might better to merge or move this Valnet, Inc. or something similar, as they have some other properties that are Wikipedia. Edit, there was also a yahoo reference but maybe merge is better, I agree this is not a well known site. Starspotter (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet the requirements for notability, I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simple case of failing the WP:GNG. This debate is probably only still active because of low participation, as neither Keep !vote are anywhere near a valid rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:NWEB. "I rather like it" is not an argument. -The Gnome (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sheen Falls Lodge[edit]

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

The article is completely blank and a quick Google search shows only a website and reviews from travel sites. Wizard King 01:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We probably need clarity from @Nosebagbear: on the OTRS request and why it was blanked (per the guidelines of OTRS regarding privacy, of course); it formerly redirected properly to La Cascade per @JHunterJ:'s pagemove, but we should undo it because of whatever request was made (I'm assuming branding/new ownership)? Hopefully their input helps us out here. Nate • (chatter) 01:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation - @WizardKing and Mrschimpf: sorry all, I meant to actually revert my redirect delete and then go to RfD. However this will also function. Mrschimpf is correct in that the non-redirect was requested because the restaurant no longer exists in this form and was owned by different ownership than the current lodge is. As a defunct redirect it didn't seem to serve much. It could well fail notability as well. Apologies for the confusion for mucking up half-way through! Nosebagbear (talk)
Delete per my above points. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The hotel housed a Michelin-starred restaurant The Falls but that disappeared out of this article completely. And it was this hotel-restaurant (not a separate entity) that gave the hotel its fame. And as far as I know, notability is not temporary. The Banner talk 13:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article needs revision but topic meets notability. PhobosIkaros ✉ 22:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to La Cascade. The hotel is not notable but the restaurant is. Spleodrach (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 7 August 2019 (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 Michael Crichton#Other speeches. There is a clear consensus against keeping this page. Beyond that it gets a bit murkier. My general rule of thumb in the absence of clear direction is to go with the least drastic course of action that received a reasonable level of support. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gell-Mann amnesia effect[edit]

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

Article is almost entirely quotes from copyrighted sources. Seems to be a non-notable Neologism. Google hits are almost entirely uses of the term, rather than coverage, and those that cover it are not reliable sources. Despite what may be inferred from the title, it is not an academic term and is---from what I can tell---entirely absent from Google Scholar. Wug·a·po·des 07:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If copyvio is the issue, delete the copyvio material ASAP, or speedy delete the article. FOARP (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @FOARP: I don't think it's a copyvio; it's properly attributed. It's that the proportion of quotes is so high it may not constitute fair use under WP:NFCC Wug·a·po·des 07:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a search found just 69 hits, basically all unusable, and at best quoting Crichton; the one on The Economist website is in a reader comment. Nom seems to be correct, this is a neologism that really hasn't caught on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, your search is going to exclude many more sources than you presumably intend. In using e.g. "-blog", you're going to remove from the results ANY web page that contains the term "blog"; you aren't necessarily excluding blogs themselves, as I assume you're expecting. The same goes for the other operators ("-reddit", "-twitter", etc.). Secondly, I think it's unfair to perform a search, as you did, explicitly excluding Crichton's quote — as the term is relatively obscure, it's to be expected that sources employing the term would explain and expand upon it via quotation, no? GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Specifically, this is basically a Michael Crichton quote and Wikipedia is not Wikiquote. There is no indication that this is notable independent of Crichton in my WP:BEFORE, and merging it to Michael Crichton would be undue. FOARP (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Michael_Crichton#Other_speeches, where it would fit quite nicely. Note that the page currently gets over 400 views per day and so, per WP:PRESERVE, it would be unhelpful to delete the page, leaving this AfD as our only readable account of the matter. Andrew D. (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't think about that target, but a one- or two-sentence summary there would be a good idea. FOARP, I agree that merging the whole page would be undue, but what are your thoughts on a couple-sentence mention as part of Michael Crichton#Other speeches? Wug·a·po·des 16:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Project:editing policy is not based upon page view counts, which is not a reliable metric in any case, nor is Project:deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nomination asserts that this is a "non-notable Neologism" and others assert that this is a "failed neologism". The point about the readership traffic is that it demonstrates that there's actually quite a high level of interest. To put this in context, note that the page in question gets more traffic than Murray Gell-Mann – the related Nobel prize winner who died earlier this year. Turning the link red is just going to frustrate the many people looking for information and Google will send them elsewhere if we don't accommodate this. We can help send them to the right place by redirecting this traffic to the relevant section of Crichton's article as they might otherwise end up at Gell-Mann's. And if you want to be a stickler for policy, note that Notability is not a policy whereas WP:PRESERVE and WP:IAR are. My !vote stands and is policy-based. Andrew D. (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not if you continue to maintain that policy involves page view counts, it isn't; as policy quite clearly does not involve page view counts at all. Whereas notability is in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, twice in §1 alone. Your rationale in fact has no basis in policy, because policy does not deal in page views nor in what Google happens to decide to do from one day to the next. Nor should it, given the mechanics and realities of them both. Uncle G (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A neologism that hasn't caught on or been studied by linguists or lexicographers. It's basically a quip, and as such, merging it into Michael Crichton seems to me like undue weight. It's not a coinage that Crichton is known for, the way that, for example, Isaac Asimov is credited for robotics. I guess I wouldn't strongly object to a sentence or two at some place like Michael Crichton#Other speeches, but even that feels like adding trivia/cruft. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a failed neologism, then forget about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge to Michael_Crichton#Other_speeches - As a minor neologism that did not achieve widespread use or discussion in reliable sources. ~~As mentioned by several other users above, merging it to Michael Crichton gives undue weight to a very minor talk of his.~~ Rorshacma (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- While the references are still too brief and lacks significant coverage discussing the concept in enough depth to sustain an article, I have been convinced that Chrichton's talk regarding it is well known enough that a merge to the appropriate section of his article is a valid option. Rorshacma (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no evidence of significant coverage of this ordinary quote. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While having little note in the academic sphere, is a sufficiently popular neologism, as demonstrated by a simple search of the term. It would be a disservice to the utility of Wikipedia to remove it. If some note must be made that it is not an academically studied effect, as I agree the name would suggest, so be it. If it is ruled that the page really should be deleted, a merger onto Crighton's page ought to be the bare minimum. CooperFlourens (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Popularity of a phrase is the concern of a lexicographer. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The concern here at Wikipedia is the concept/event/person/place/thing denoted by the name, and whether it has escaped its inventor to actually become a properly documented part of the corpus of human knowledge, per our Project:No original research policy. That involves independent sources showing that people other than the creator have documented the concept. Where and what are yours? Uncle G (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's a selection of sources: a book; a newsletter; an obituary; a magazine article. Andrew D. (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge — I believe there's sufficient coverage of this term. It appears in books (one, two, three) and in the news (National Review, The Herald (his obit; granted), Continental Telegraph, The Federalist), as well as myriad other websites (does The Unz Review count as "news"?) and in the Journal of Dispute Resolution. Sure, it's an uncommon neologism, but it's by no means obscure and has had ample coverage in my opinion. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The issue, though, is that in most of those sources, the coverage is extremely passing. Quite often little more than a single sentence defining it, or just a copy-paste of an excerpt of Chrichton's original talk. And the issue, as stated in the nom as in several of the comments, isn't that the term doesn't come up as being used, its that there is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources that actually talk about the concept in any more depth than paraphrasing or quoting Chrichton's definition.Rorshacma (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having reviewed the sources highlighted in this discussion, I think you're right. Most of the sources are indeed rather brief. Part of me can't help but feel the article ought to be kept, but having considered the available sources I now believe a merge is more appropriate. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Michael_Crichton#Other_speeches, there is too much coverage to make delete a comfortable choice, too little to pass WP:NEO, so MERGing is a sensible move.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Note to ivoters and closing administrator: E.M.Gregory is a blocked sock. Lightburst (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Merge per E.M.Gregory. Looking at the target section, I don't think it would be crufty there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reconfirming that I still agree with the argument made by that editor, regardless of footware. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Michael_Crichton#Other_speeches deletion is a disservice to our readers, WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. 41,306 pageviews in the past 90 days, so if article isn't kept, need to have a redirect to where they can find the content at in the article for Michael Crichton. Dream Focus 03:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not Wikiquote, and this article fails WP:NOT. Egroeg5 (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Michael Crichton. Does not stand as an independent page - as written. My very best wishes (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess why is it being considered for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.52.58.89 (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence of significant coverage for this quote and it fails WP:NOT Taewangkorea (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. a snow keep. There is no way a consensus would form to delete the article given the coverage in WP:RS, and the significance of the events surrounding the subject of the article. Kindly see the reasoning put forward by "keep" commenters, and understand it. Further reading: this AfD. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)[edit]

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

Jammu and Kashmir is not yet a union territory of India. India has not yet officially or formally annexed Jammu and Kashmir yet. IMHO, this page should not even exist yet in the main namespace. Saqib (talk) 07:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia has covered proposed territories when they have significant coverage in secondary sources (see Category:Proposed states and territories of Brazil, Category:Proposed states and territories of Australia, Category:Proposed states and territories of India for examples). In this case, the bill to bring the union territory into effect has been passed in both houses of the Parliament and only awaits the President's assent. India never 'annexed' the territory, but a major part of it is under the country's control for the past 71 years, so any decision the country takes is notable, and will have effect. DeluxeVegan (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

& What if the legality of this move could be questioned in the Supreme Court of India and Supreme Court strike it down? --Saqib (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even then, the union territory will have existed for a period of time. That would result in even more coverage of the topic. FYI, my argument was based on the coverage this proposed territory received in secondary sources, and not the question of its legality. DeluxeVegan (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wait the centralized discussion at the India project noticeboard --Sharouser (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given the majority with which the Bill was passed in both Houses of the Parliament, the reality of the reorganisation seems more evident than being bleak and a distant myth. -- Tamravidhir (talk!) 09:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a certainty that the UT will be created, whether anyone likes it or not. TryKid (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a well-researched article, and even if the territory were to be voted down (which doesn't seem to be the case), I think you could change "is" to "was" in the first sentence and still have a deserving article. —Ubiquity (talk • contribs) 18:01, 7 August 2019 (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 07:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeonghan[edit]

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

Previously deleted at AfD. This new version of the article is not the same so WP:G4 doesn't apply, but the same issues are there. No significant solo activity, hence no notability ouside of Seventeen (South Korean band). PC78 (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - no notable solo activity, article is just a stub of appearances with really nothing significant outside the group Evaders99 (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion critieria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply not notable outside of the group Alex (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent notability, an entry at the group's article is sufficient.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article has been moved to Yoon Jeonghan (kind of against WP:COMMONNAME).--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:39, 11 August 2019 (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) 20:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queen City Yacht Club (Seattle)[edit]

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

One of more than a dozen local social and moorage organizations in the area for people who use boats. Largely copied from https://www.queencity.org/about-qcyc as a promotional article. No sources to establish notability or independent references to verify content. Reywas92^Talk 07:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 07:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No source provided except official web site. A WP:BEFORE found sources mainly use as directory, marketing, advertising, map/direction. A run of the mill boats company. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:10, 7 August 2019 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canada WET[edit]

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

No significant coverage for a music festival that apparently only happened once in 2005 for two days. SL93 (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted by RHaworth per WP:CSD#G11 - see log entry. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Island Pangkor[edit]

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

the baseless article which is not based on the usual structure of wikipedia's article such as having the lead and ... Saff V. (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I've tagged this as G11 -- advertising/promotion -- because it so obviously falls within this category and there's no need for this to be listed for seven days. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2019 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

European International University[edit]

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

Appears to be spam authored by an SPA (contributions page here). Fails GNG, ORG, and CORPDEPTH.

All available sources appear to be primary (closely connected with the University) - except one, which is here, and which is not a reliable source and has only one passing mention of this organization (see number 85 ranking).

Also, this was previously speedy deleted as a draft in WP:AFC by an Anonymous IP user - see this talk page diff. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment This is probably notable enough but needs a lot more sources. I shall get back to this in a few days to see if there are more references.Ivor Browning (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You won't, because your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/J.K.McBrine.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

striked out sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/J.K.McBrine. or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ivor Browning. —---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arya Dega[edit]

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

Non-notable person failing WP:GNG with no in-depth sources. The two news articles where the person is mentioned more than a passing mention are not about the person (about car event/stuff). A couple sources are passing mentions. Other sources are not independent or don't cover the subject. Declined AfC moved to mainspace by author. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think he is notable enough for an article. It is most likely promotional (even if not from him). Ivor Browning (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- — Ivor Browning (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of J.K.McBrine. (talk • contribs). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Most sources just mentioned subject in one or 2 sentences (passing mentioned) and not showing any merit of notability required. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:50, 7 August 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

League of Revolutionaries for a New America[edit]

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

Yet another obscure, tiny Marxist party with no elected officials or even any candidates from what I can tell. Article does not appear to meet WP:ORGCRIT (substantial, non-trivial coverage from multiple independent reliable secondary sources). Article is entirely unsourced and reads like an ad. Tags have remained up for almost eight years now. Toa Nidhiki05 03:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a Google Books search returns only trivial mentions that do not satisfy SIGCOV. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has no references and looks like possible original research. Ivor Browning (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability lacking per above.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:55, 13 August 2019 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holger Chen[edit]

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

An "internet personality" who tries hard to be famous for being famous. Name primarily seems to pop up as an interviewer of actually notably people. Owning a fitness center and restaurant provides some name-drops but nothing more. The lot garnished with gossip about his dog and a single cameo. Fails WP:GNG. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes GNG. [27][28][29][30][31] and that's just English language sources dug up in 2 seconds. His notability has nothing to do with what he is famous for. --Spacepine (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Of the references cited above, almost all come from a single source (Taiwan News, which whilst definitely a WP:NEWSORG is not the best of TW's EN-language newspapers - not to put too fine a point on things). Epoch Times is not generally considered an RS. I think the Taiwan News articles, the AsiaOne one cited above, and this Taipei Times article get him over the bar for WP:BASIC. Not enthusiastic about this as this guy clearly is just a Youtuber, but WP:BASIC appears met so keep it is. FOARP (talk) 07:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Procedural note: it doesn't matter whether the person is an 'internet personality', Youtuber, 'famous for being famous', etc.-- those are not actually rationales for deletion. If the subject is notable, they're notable, regardless of how little you think they contribute to society. Gilded Snail (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2019 (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. Withdrawn. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Anton[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. I've cleared some extensive copyvios which go back to the first version of this, 11 years ago. What's left is pretty close to WP:G11 material. My own searching failed to come up with any good sources. Fails WP:ARTIST, unless you consider sculptures of oversized candy to be a "significant new concept". Given the author's editing history (i.e. WP:SPA), I'm assuming this is also a case of WP:UPE, or possibly WP:AUTO. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. I disagree with the consensus, but it's inevitable that this will be kept, so we can save some time. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is no notability issue here. For starters the nominated article included nine sources, although not inline. I had no trouble finding seven more to place inline, one of which is a collection. He claims four other collections. There is lots of coverage and he is in one confirmed permanent collection, and likely more. So, take your pick, meets WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Also, if you want to see the really good minimalist candy art, check out the famous candy piles of Felix Gonzales-Torres.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS I do agree that it is probably an autobio. Eleven years of a single SPA editing it! That account should be blocked for being WP:NOTHERE. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG --Spacepine (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per both above, regardless of the origins of the article. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still don’t see general notability here. Trillfendi (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his works are represented in several museum collections. Vexations (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - assuming every source is true, he's been in really major art exhibits (e.g., Art Basel) and featured in major magazines (e.g., Forbes). That passes WP:CREATIVE for me. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons given above. —Bobbychan193 (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keepfor all reasons above but just wanted to say it is chilling to see someone who doesn't understand the cultural consensus of major shows, museum collections, reviews in journals as passing against the small minded opinion that " oversized candy" isn't significant. like it or not wiki has become a major source for cultural research and the thought that folks who know nothing about the field might have the power to delete a minor but meaningful artist from the record is sad.Lblackcloud (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one is exercising power to delete without discussion here. Roy Smith nominated, and he withdrew it when concensus became evident.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial license offering[edit]

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

"ILO"s are not an actual financial instrument, they are an fictional instrument which are actually a pyramid scheme. This page should be deleted. There is not a single legitimate reference on the page!! Iloisfraud (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacking reliable sourcing, there is no evidence this exists legally. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just because it is used in schemes does not make in unnoteable. CLCStudent (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, does this - "National Academy of Athletics (NAofA) launches an initial License offering (ILO)" show its a thing (note: i am not saying that it is notable)? Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are literally no relevant results for this phrase (with quotes) on Google Scholar (and one irrelevant result). I cannot find any significant coverage in a more general search either. It certainly feels very pyramid scheme-y, and sets off many of the same warning flags, but judgement as a "scheme" or such is outside the purview of AfD - all that matters is the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. @Coolabahapple: it is definitely a thing that exists, in the sense of there are companies that do it, but that's a matter of WP:V, not WP:N. MarginalCost (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does the fact that the entire article is unreferenced and that the page's description of an "ILO" is clearly fiction not matter at wikipedia? There is no evidence that "ILO"s are actually an extant financial instrument. Every website that makes reference to an "ILO" is low grade and skin deep, often filled with boilerplate and lorem ipsum when you get 2 or 3 links deep. "ILO"s are a fiction used to defraud people.
Delete whether or not it exists, the current article is promoting an unlicensed financial instrument and does not rely on reliable sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 14 August 2019 (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.