Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 January	10 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Uson[edit]

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

Promotional article by a WP:SPA about a 17-year-old Colombian DJ that fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He also happens to be a tennis player, but he fails WP:NSPORT on this account as well. None of the references in the article are reliable sources, and no good independent sources have been found. Richard3120 (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments.

We have and re-organized

The text and citations to make it more clear that on that, in fact, Marco´s Biography meets al least, 4 wikipedia´s criteria of notability for musicians

Particularly:

1) In accordance with Wikipedia's standard or criteria of notability 2, Marco Uson has music that has been published on worldwide music charts. His tracks have been in the TOP 100 Marco Uson of Beatport, the worlds largest electronic music store. In fact, he is also one of the very few Colombians appearing in this chart (this is very reliable for a electronic music lover). Marco also has been in the TOP 100 of the iTunes Store in Spain. Verifiable citation: (all of this can this can ve proved on Beatport and on BeatStas the statistics web page of the store).

2) In accordance with Wikipedia's standard or criteria of notability 1 Marco´s musical productions have been reviewed in independent and recognized magazines, specialized in electronic music as “Faze Mag (print version) (https://www.facebook.com/djmarcouson/posts/2188448444723341)” and "Electronic Grooves” (. Verifiable citation: https://electronicgroove.com/show/premieres/marco-uson-chaos-snippet-resopal-schallware/, https://www.facebook.com/djmarcouson/posts/2188448444723341,

3) In accordance with Wikipedia's standard or criteria of notability 12 Marco Uson has also been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio network. In this regard we would like to mention Marco´s live-set broadcast in one the most influential radio station of Colombia called “ Radionica ” . This special Broadcast was done on the colombian radio channel 99.1 and via Facebook live https://www.facebook.com/radionicafm/videos/419703391894251

4) In accordance with wikipedia standard or criteria of notability 5 Marco Uson has published in independent label such as RESOPAL SCHALLWARE , with a history of Electronic music since 2002 roster of performers such as Acid Pauli, Johannes Heil, John Tejada, Oliver Koletzki whom are independently notable and part of wikipedia. https://labelsbase.net/label/resopal-schallware

In summary, Marco´s Biography, does meets at least 4 criteria for notability in music, and this can be verified by the reliable and public sources we have cited in the text.

Therefore We have re-edited the wikipedia article so that notability is verified.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookingpensartes (talk • contribs)

@Bookingpensartes: unfortunately, none of your changes meet the notability criteria.

1) Per WP:BADCHARTS, Beatport is not a recognised chart as it is a single vendor chart.

2) Faze Mag is an acceptable source, but the link you provide doesn't work (for me, at least). The only link to Mr. Uson that I can find on Faze Mag is a listing he provided of his current top ten favourite tracks that he plays - this doesn't provide us with any information about him. Electronic Groove has not yet been reviewed to see if it can be accepted as a reliable source, but the review of the track has no author and sounds like it has been provided by the artist's management rather than reviewed by the website.

3) I live in Colombia and can confirm that Radiónica is one of the major radio stations for non-traditional Latin music in the country. It only broadcasts in and around the country's major cities, but I'm not sure if this qualifies as a national radio station if it has a network across part of the country. Additionally, the broadcast consisted of a one-hour mix alongside three other DJs. Many DJs across the world have had a mix played on a radio station somewhere, so this isn't anything out of the ordinary, and this normally isn't considered a "substantial broadcast segment".

4) Resopall Schallware is not considered a significant record label. Richard3120 (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The use of the term "we", makes this very suspect of paid editing. On top of that, not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NMUSICIAN. There are no sources to support notability. There are video clips but, per WP:ELP, these are not acceptable since they're not, for instance, a segment from a well-known television news show, or an official video channel from a major publisher. Then there's a couple of Facebook pages, but Facebook is not an acceptable source for notability, per WP:NOYT. And so on. The claim that the subject meets specific WP:NMUSICIAN criteria has already been refuted above by Richard3120. -The Gnome (talk) 12:46, 16 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BoBo Fishball[edit]

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

Recreation of BoBo Fish Ball which was WP:SOFTDELETEd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BoBo Fish Ball. Still no indication of notability, the page is not written in a neutral tone, and the creator's only edits have been creating this page and related pages and adding links to it to other pages. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's possible that a sufficiently dedicated editor could construct an article for parent company Ha Li Fa, but the specific BoBo brand does not merit its own article. The brand's social media got a bit of attention in 2017 for a video series advertising its products, and routine coverage (quotes, stats) about the brand in China shows up here and there, but that's about it, so WP:NCORP does not appear to be met. Bakazaka (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this promotional, unsourced text, per nomination. (Which has been, incidentally, created by an account that was involved in just two articles, both about retail enterprises, in ten tears' time.) It's possible that this fishball needs a bit of salt, as well. -The Gnome (talk) 13:24, 16 January 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Group 70[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP; no significant press coverage and not even a particular claim of notability asserted in this article. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, as best I can tell, fails WP:GNG. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Website hasn't been updated in years. Jake (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,fails WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, on account of subject failing WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 13:25, 16 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Board Game Festival[edit]

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

Event seems to fail WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG. Not seeing In-depth news coverage from independent sources. I also suspect COI or undisclosed paid editing here. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. I doubt this is undisclosed paid editing, although I would imagine a conflict of interest at hand. There are a lot of these small gaming conventions that don't rise to the level of significant coverage. This one is particularly small; it's own web presence indicates that 2018 was its inaugural year. So, if we're being particularly generous, we can call this WP:TOOSOON. I've taken the liberty of removing it from List of gaming conventions in any case. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/Keep: I must contest this suggestion for deletion. The article is more timely and more reliable than some of the items listed in the List of gaming conventions such as Gamers'_Day. That article, for example, has invalid links and is more "stubbier" than this article. This suggestion for deletion seems arbitrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamaustin (talk • contribs) 18:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note @Adamaustin: Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The references added here are not reliable or do not show indepth coverage. Lots of them are just press releases telling people to buy tickets. The one indepth one is a wordpress article. By the way, the creator of the article has openly admitted to having a COI on the articles talk page and searching their name shows they have a connection. As well, if you were asked to add your opinion please see WP:CANVAS. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note @HickoryOughtShirt?4: Thank you for those references. If my comment is invalid and not constructive, please delete it. -adam 20:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA. There are no sources supporting notability. -The Gnome (talk) 13:27, 16 January 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 00:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bird's array notation[edit]

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

I don't see any evidence online that this subject has gained any traction or coverage in RS. A Google Scholar search doesn't return anything significant. Does not meet WP:GNG _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only "sources" are not reliable, and are authored by the inventor of this notation (who does not appear, as far as I can tell, to be a published mathematician at all) besides. There's no indication of any wider attention. Indeed, I'm not sure that "can be used to write big numbers" is inherently a claim of significance, but as there's no clear indication that the article author and the concept's creator are related, it is technically exempt from consideration under A11. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be the creator of this notation. It is unlikely that such a notation invented by someone without a PhD in mathematics even six years after the invention would be notable, and in this case I can't find any independent sources that cover this. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:54, 10 January 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator game[edit]

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

Strangest page I can remember coming across. Looks like an editor came across some random nonsense on a blog, misread it, then wrote an article about it. Thought about CSD-G3, but I guess the blogs indicate that someone, somewhere thinks that this is a thing. In short - no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I suppose there's enough to dodge the G3 bullet. But in any case, when the best referencing the topic has is Thought Catalog (accepts open contributions, permits fictional contributions, no editorial oversight whatsoever), and even THAT deems it obscure, I think it's safe to say that notability is out of reach. And that doesn't even address the nonsense grammar issues. So maybe it could earn that coveted G3 speedy after all? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it may be worth pointing out that the article's original founding edit had a very different lead text to the one it current has. It may only add a miniscule amount of additional credibility though and the sources aren't exactly suitable in my view. I think it's unwise to judge the article on the poorly edited version of the current lead, although I don't think the article stands up to scrutiny regardless. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Nothing here worth saving. --Lockley (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nonsensical contribution that serves no encyclopaedi purpose. -The Gnome (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This actually exists as an urban legend, as evidenced by coverage in Bustle and Evening Times, but not finding significant coverage to meet the bar of WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 17 January 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 10,000 BC (film). The history is still available if anyone wants to retrieve details to incorporate into the target article. RL0919 (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evolet[edit]

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

Not notable to be included in Wikipedia. Binod Basnet (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't meet WP:GNG or the applicable essay. SITH (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails all notability guidelines. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment...but would not be averse to redirecting to the film's page as per Bakazaka's suggestion below. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 10,000 BC (film). There's no reason to have a standalone article on this single character who is already discussed on the film's page, and the added text in this article is unsourced speculation that does not merit merging. So, redirect the character name to the film as {{R from fictional character}}. Bakazaka (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2019

WP:SigCov says "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article." As you note, support for the "given name" notability can be found in databases. Can you suggest a "another article" in which this information should appear? Maybe in a "cultural references" section of the (UTC)

Retain. I've added some cites. It appears to stand on its own as a feminine given name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butwhatdoiknow (talk • contribs)

@Butwhatdoiknow: Given that editors have already !voted based on the substantive content of the page, would you mind holding off on completely rewriting the page as an SIA until some consensus has been achieved? Your proposal seems reasonable, and being bold is important, but so is gaining consensus, which is the whole purpose of an AfD discussion. Bakazaka (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the etiquette tip. I'll stand down. That said, if an article can be saved by changes, I wonder why we prevent those changes from taking place. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, you think that the article should be kept, but as an explicit Wikipedia:Set Index Article about the name "Evolet", as opposed to its current form as an article about a fictional character (including the character infobox). It's a good idea that we should discuss here. No one has prevented your edits, and no one has reverted them. Bakazaka (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Despite having an awesome website name, appellationmountain.net appears to be a one-person blog, and thus is not RS. All other coverage of "Evolet" as a given name is in databases and the like which is not SIGCOV. And as others argued before the article was overhauled, the character from 10,000 B.C. does not meet GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV says: "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article." As you note support for Evolet as a given name can be found in databases. And those databases show it was first used following the release of 10,000 B.C. Where would you suggest we put these facts? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It could merit a section of its own in 10,000 B.C., or merit mention in the Reception section. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 21:56, 9 January 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DZMD[edit]

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

Probable hoax. No evidence that this station exists. It is not listed the 2018 list of FM stations by the NTC. That list also does not identify any FM station located in the province of Bataan (Region 3). Bluemask (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was previously been CSD'd and PROD'd. --Bluemask (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 11:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 11:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 11:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This smells. I am not an expert on radio in the Philippines, however, this source shows six radio stations in Balanga City, Bataan. All previously had wikipedia articles. All the others, systematically wiped out, ten years after their creation. Why would this source indicate they existed, why did they exist for so long before all being wiped out? Did somebody create all those fraudulent articles and they stayed for that long? Why is the entire province not listed in the government source? Comparing to the source listed, there are certainly far fewer stations listed. It seems far more reasonable for a population center to have some media than to be a complete void. The responses to the attached foi request seems to have overwhelmed the government agency, perhaps this list is incomplete? Years ago I happened onto a similar situation, where someone was trying to wipe out another region's radio stations. I can google sources, and did. Why does nobody else seem to find sources that verify this content. I can't verify anything in person, I cannot point to which parties are being disingenuous. But this stinks. Trackinfo (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the stations did exist at the time that RadioStationWorld compiled that directory but have since gone out of business, the thing is that simply existing is not in and of itself a notability clincher for a radio station on Wikipedia — what a radio station requires is reliable source verification that it meets all three of three criteria: having a proper license from the appropriate regulatory authority, rather than operating as an unlicensed pirate or Part 15 station; originating at least some of its own programming, rather than operating solely as a rebroadcaster of content that originates with a parent service; and actually being operational, rather than existing solely as an unlaunched license that exists on paper but isn't actually broadcasting. Whether it "stinks" or not, the ability of a radio station to qualify for a Wikipedia article requires us to be able to reliably source that all three of those conditions are true, and it is not enough for a radio station's article to just claim that they're true without citing any sources to verify that. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In order for a radio station to qualify for an article, we require reliable source coverage to properly verify that the station actually meets the notability criteria for radio stations (which I already enumerated above in reply to Trackinfo, so I won't repeat here.) It is not enough, however, to simply cite archived copies of the station's own self-promotional materials — we have seen people try to legitimize hoax articles about radio stations that didn't really exist by creating fake websites and fake press releases to "verify" that the stations really existed, so that kind of source material does not clinch a station's notability at all: what we require is independent sources, such as articles in the local newspaper about the radio station's launch. So no, the new sources Trackinfo has been adding don't cut it. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to support this, and I can find circumstantial evidence that this is... let's say "inaccurate", if we want to avoid calling things outright hoaxes. The Philippine government does/did acknowledge the existence of DZMD radio. But not this DZMD. Rather, DZMD-AM 1161, operating out of Daet. It has a substub article in the Central Bikol Wikipedia that doesn't cite sources, but does suggest that it's the real station with this callsign. I can't find any presence for an FM station with the DZMD callsign except here and in the context of webcast radio; I think the overwhelmingly likely situation is that it simply doesn't exist as a conventional, licensed radio station. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering both Squeamish's source that DZMD exists only as an AM station (and has much more of a Google trail) and the article creator's only contribs here were to create this and push this (see their filter log for attempts to create a 'network' involving this station), this is yet another Filipino radio hoax from someone playing pretend with their radio playlists and uploading them to a radio streaming service. Really tired of these; every month or two we have to deal with this. This station's Google track seems to involve a bunch of fake YouTube vids of their 'airchecks', and if it 'soothes the whole country with its network of MY FM BATAAN', considering that being in Manila is a de facto requirement to being a network in the country, there's nothing here to suggest this station is real at all. Nate • (chatter) 00:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 13:30, 16 January 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Dingfelder[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician that fails WP:POLITICIAN. Most cited coverage is that he was running or run of the mill candidate profiles. Relatively little significant coverage about him as an actual individual. Reads more like a resume. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Came across this page from BLPN. Page is promotional and subject does not meet general notability requirements. Most coverage is only local. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also saw this at BLPN. The article is unsourced, promotional, and based on the available evidence here the subject does not seem notable. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete city councilors are not default notable. We need more sources to show notability. We need way more than a open source website that seeks articles on all political candidates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability as a city councilor. Tampa would not meet the "city of international prominence" for municipal pols that Bearcat suggests as a rule of thumb on WP:NPOL. Additionally, WP:NOTRESUME and lacks any sources backing up claims. Could possibly be G11'd Bkissin (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As large and significant as Tampa is, it is still not a global city for the purposes of being able to make its city councillors notable enough for articles just for the fact of serving as city councillors per se. He could still clear the bar if something genuinely substantive and reliably sourced could be written about his political career which demonstrated credible evidence (eg. nationalizing coverage) that he was a special case over and above most other city councillors — but this, as written, is not so much an encyclopedia article as it is an unsourced "meet your councillor" blurb of the type one would expect to see on the city council's own self-published website. The key to getting a city councillor over the "special case" bar does not hinge on being able to primary-source his pre-politics career and volunteer backgrounds, because every city councillor always has career and community involvement backgrounds and a primary-source profile on the city council's website — it hinges on being able to reliably source genuinely substantive content about his work on the city council. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 13 January 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 January 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was correctly listed on Jan 9. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 13:35, 16 January 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. Sandstein 12:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Sokhandan[edit]

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

Article has multiple issues, very little to the article and not very notable HC7 (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the subject officiated as linesman in a 2018 world cup match. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that PressTV may be reliable on soccer. And my searches show that other Iranian media have sentences like "Reza Sokhandan and Mohammad Mansouri will officiate ..."E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PressTV certainly wouldn't be a reliable source for content about middle Eastern geopolitics, but I cited it here for this uncontroversial content simply because it was the first source that I found indicating this. Looking elsewhere I see that he acted as assistant refereee (the new-fangled name for what has been known since time immemorial as a linesman) in four matches at the world cup including the third place play-off. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the claim is that "Sokhandan is an assistant referee." Delete E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:22, 16 January 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 Ted Healy. WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP favor the redirect over deletion. No votes are for keep. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 01:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia Healy[edit]

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

Non-notable actress who appeared in a single Three Stooges short. Her brother was Ted Healy, however notability is not inherited. ♟♙ (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ted's article. Plausible search term, and the key content is already present there. Try as I might, there's just no indication of independent notability to be found. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In newspaper articles from 1931-1932, she is described as a "musical comedy star of the Pacific coast" (eg [1]). This is 3+ years before her film appearances, so they are not referring to them, but I haven't actually found reports of her acting in musical comedy. I have found sources for her appearance in another film, The Great Ziegfeld (filmed 1935-36) (eg [2]), but otherwise most news reports are about her marriages (eg [3], [4]). In many reports, her name is given as Marcia Nash Healy (though searching that name doesn't help in finding more sources, unfortunately). If this article is merged with her brother's, it would be good to include both films, not just the one she appeared in with him. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not everyone who appeared on screen is notable. This really applies to pre-television era movies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two (un)credits don't come anywhere close to satisfying WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ted Healy. I also agree that this is a plausible search term. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:42, 16 January 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Blake[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable wrestler - editor is just copying pages from prowrestling.fandom.com - in this case https://prowrestling.fandom.com/wiki/Michael_Blake KylieTastic (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G12. Wikia content is, unless otherwise specified, available under the CC-BY-SA license. The author of the page has not included a backlink in the form of a URL or in any way indicated that this content is copied from Wikia, so that technically makes it an unambiguous license violation and therefore falls under speedy criteria. SITH (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Speedy G12 declined on a similar copy-paste by same author. Left a message on the article creator's talk page suggesting that they pause and fix their existing articles (attribution and notability) before adding more, but they deleted that message almost immediately. Bakazaka (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete page seems to be a test page and is not notable.--HC7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 19:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 19:47, 11 January 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. WP:V compliance is mandatory for all content. Sandstein 12:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of consorts of Bar[edit]

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

Totally unsourced. At first glance, this looks like it's well sourced. Until you actually look at the references and discover that they're all just links to other wikipedia articles. Beatrice of Paris, for example, is referenced to List of consorts of Lorraine, which in turn doesn't have any source for its Beatrice of Paris entry.

This was discussed seven years ago, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of consorts of X, where it was kept. SilkTork wrote in his close that there was, a strong recommendation to source the material. Nobody's bothered to do that in the ensuing years. So, we've still got a huge mess of WP:INTERESTING, but non-WP:V, material. I have not yet looked closely at the other articles included in that AfD. I suspect they're more of the same, but let's start with one. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are many, many of these lists, where the fact that it is a list and not an article has allowed a shellgame that bypasses policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:IINFO, WP:NOTGENEALOGY and other aspects of WP:NOT, WP:PROPORTION, WP:CIRCULAR, etc.). Once made, they rarely get policed or the lack of verifiability improved. This is a particularly egregious example. I say nuke it. Agricolae (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without verifiability, notability is not inherited. Trillfendi (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lists are problematic because they are different to articles, and have their own guideline page: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, which seemingly allows lists to be created without the need for sources: WP:LISTVERIFY. Removing lists like these can be difficult because there are few policies and guidelines that give clear advice on when a list should be deleted. If I had time enough and energy, I would write a notability guide for lists, but I don't. However, if someone else wishes to write such a guideline, give me a ping and I'll certainly help out where I can. SilkTork (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I am not reading this policy the way you are. Not at all. It explicitly says that stand-alone lists are subject to the same rules as other articles regarding verifiability and sourcing, and that when a statement is made a source must be provided. It does say that unless it is one of the required circumstances (a direct quote, a BLP fact, or anything previously or likely to be challenged), an inline citation may not be necessary, but that is not the same as a source not being necessary and it goes on to say a References section is appropriate when inline cites are not used. Agricolae (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the list contains little other than the items in the group, then it appears it needs little to no sourcing - it gives List of fruits as an example. SilkTork (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, does not require an inline citation." (emphasis mine) Anyhow, an apple may obviously belong in a list of fruit, but there is nothing obvious about the inclusion of Matilda of Swabia as a 'consort of Bar', let alone all of the extra information about her, such as that she was daughter of Duke Herman II, or Ermentrude of Burgundy being born in 1050/1055, or Beatrice of Paris dying 23 February 1003. No, that policy makes it clear that WP:V applies to lists, and that non-obvious 'statements' (which is, in effect, what each table cell represents) "should be sourced where they appear". Agricolae (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the "references" are useless, but, in the case of the example you mentioned, the article Beatrice of Paris does have two sources. Lists have the advantage that it is possible to include members who are not individually notable, or who do not yet have their own Wikipedia article, and a redlink indicates the need for one. WP:NOTGENEALOGY actually says "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." Rulers of states or provinces are notable, and even where the consort is not notable in themselves, knowing relationships between a ruler and their wife's or mother's family supports understanding of the topic. I did notice, googling "countess of Bar", that in fact there are three places called Bar, Bar-le-Duc (which this article relates to), Bar-sur-Seine, and Bar-sur-Aube, and there were countesses of all three. It would probably be useful to indicate somewhere (perhaps on this page, perhaps on the article Duchy of Bar) that this relates only to the first. (French Wikipedia has an article Liste des comtes de Bar-sur-Seine.) I would suggest that 'List of countesses and duchesses of Bar' is a more obvious page name, however. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice of Paris does have two references, but do they contain the information being reported on the List page? Who can tell given that entire books (without page numbers) are listed for what is likely simply passing reference. I seriously doubt it, particularly since her own page places her death more than a decade earlier than the List does. Further her page says absolutely nothing about her being Countess of Bar, and I have little faith that the cited sources give this detail either. How then does the presence of two references on her page in any way make the information on the List verifiable, as is required? As to NOTGENEALOGY, generalities aside, some of these tables give much more trivial genealogical details (e.g. naming an ancestor 8 generations back because the table compiler thought it was interesting). A list can be a useful way of consolidating information for people who don't themselves have a page (nor should - there is no reason so many of these should be redlinked), but the subject of the list has to be notable, and the material given has to be noteworthy and verifiable, just like the rest of Wikipedia. The real question I would ask: is a collection of mostly non-notable people really notable as a group themselves purely on the basis of having been married to members of a notable class, or is this list and others like it really just a WP:NOTINHERITED/WP:IINFO/WP:NOR datadump? I think the latter. Agricolae (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:F9ED:DB25:E38D:482C (talk) 21:51, 12 January 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Janela[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable wrestler - editor is just copying pages from prowrestling.fandom.com - in this case https://prowrestling.fandom.com/wiki/Joey_Janela KylieTastic (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G12. Wikia content is, unless otherwise specified, available under the CC-BY-SA license. The author of the page has not included a backlink in the form of a URL or in any way indicated that this content is copied from Wikia, so that technically makes it an unambiguous license violation and therefore falls under speedy criteria. SITH (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StraussInTheHouse: it was pointed out to me earlier today that "mere lack of attribution of such works" is not enough for a speedy under WP:G12. But most of the author's other copy-paste creations have been deleted under other speedy criteria, so a speedy !vote makes sense regardless. Bakazaka (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 19:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Sadly this article is in awful condition. Subject certainly meets notability guideline. ESPN Deadspin, Wrestling Observer, Fightful, Pro Wrestling Sheet, Wrestling Observer, Wrestling Observer, Pro Wrestling Sheet, and Wrestling Observer. Based on this sample of sources meets WP: ENTERTAINER and WP: GNG. STATic message me! 22:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons Static listed. Article certainly could use more work. Janela is enough of a notable name in pro wrestling to have an article. As the articles condition goes I think we should give it a few days and come back and check to see if any progress to the article has happened --HC⁷ 17:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep per sources listed by STATicVapor. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable even if the article is subpar.LM2000 (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I nominated this 7 months ago, but I believe in the time since that has changed. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 18:17, 14 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia van Cuylenburg[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT the only in-depth independent coverage I can find is this [5] which surely can't be enough? Theroadislong (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Only refs as of January 10 are interviews. David notMD (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like there was an article in the Miami Herald years ago (https://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/22/2420251/documentary-gets-to-the-root-of.html) but the link is broken. The Internet Archive doesn't have captures of it... maybe someone else knows another archive site that might? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only thing written about her is that she voice-acted a major character in Final Fantasy XIII which, if combined with other accomplishments would merit notability, by itself fails WP:ENT. MarkH21 (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently she also wrote and directed a play called "Read My Lips" about her experience with anorexia, according to a 450+ word story in the Herald Sun: Rose, Ella (13 Apr 2005). "Finding the write way". Herald Sun. p. 24. Bakazaka (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am currently working to find reputable sources to put in and edit. Please bear with me! MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She also directed and starred in Baby Let Your Hair Hang Down, a movie about alopecia. I had a lot of IMDB sources of her work in voice acting/other but they were deleted- unsure what's a reputable source to prove what she's done but I can add them here once I figure it out-- is IMDB not a reputable source for first reference? MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source as it can be edited by anyone. Theroadislong (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow! I had no idea. Thank you, that helps a lot. MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC
Comment As stated above, Baby Let Your Hair Hang Down movie as shown on ABC
Comment Played Ensign Raina Temple MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Played Sydney in Pay Day 2 Is this a good link? Would a YouTube link ever work to show her voice in the role? MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Finding_Nemo_Submarine_Voyage|Narrator for Finding Nemo: Submarine Voyage and Finding Nemo - The Musical MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk)
Comment Standup comedian in several outlets- what is the procedure for linking to those? MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Involved in helping girls through virtual reality MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThat's funny gameshow for kids Was on Jimmy Kimmel apparently, but that's an episode number of a lot of episodes and I'd need to look elsewhere besides IMDB. MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Read My Lips play as stated above (Thanks for the help) MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many more voiceover projects, need to find the best links proving it going off of IMDB- would YouTube clips work or... MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Humanitarian Initiatives such as Arts Bridging the Gap, Hearts 4 Community Action (I have photos of her working with this group once uploaded to Public Domain) but unsure of if I can link the initiatives in general. I have print articles but would need to upload them to the site under public domain?? MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but none of these are in-depth coverage and in any case Wikia, Youtube, IMDb, press releases etc. are not reliable sources for establishing notability. Theroadislong (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot see anywhere near sufficient IRS. If there were IRS for all of, or even just a significant number of, the facts in the unredacted version of the article, it would be a definite keep, but I am unable to find such. Perhaps move to DRAFT space until the current paid author can get their material together? Aoziwe (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I agree that the version of the article ca 29 December has a lot of information about her roles which could indicate notability (it also gives more to search on, now I've realised that it's there). My understanding of WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" is that if there is reliable evidence to verify those roles, that is enough - that it can be primary evidence to verify information (ie, websites etc of/from the companies that made the programs or games). I do consider the ABC News story mentioned above [6] to be independent, reliable and significant. The LA Weekly story has less coverage, but does verify one of her philanthropic roles. Perhaps draftifying would be the best option at this point, then editors who wish to can work on it until it's ready for main space. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, even if primary sources verify information, they do not demonstrate whether the productions themselves are notable under something like WP:NF. That needs to be demonstrated on top of verifying that the roles are significant. MarkH21 (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the 29 December version of the article includes 3 blue-linked video games that she had significant roles in. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical about whether her roles in Star Wars: The Old Republic (character not named anywhere on the Wikipedia article) and Payday 2 (side character mentioned once in a long plot synopsis) are really significant. The other role is the Final Fantasy XIII character which I would consider a significant role in a notable production as noted before. MarkH21 (talk) 18:14, 16 January 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. Tone 20:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Eigner (drummer)[edit]

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

Recreation of an article that was redirected to Depeche Mode. whatever the reasons were for the redirect, recreating it under another name flaunts that decision. Postcard Cathy (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The redirect from Christian Eigner to Depeche Mode seems sufficient here. There doesn't appear to be sufficient coverage for more than the mentions he gets there. --Michig (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just removed some copyvio, copy-pasted from the Zildjian website, that has been in the article since the first edit. Delete as WP:PROMO. Bakazaka (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources found to establish notability beyond his role in Depeche Mode. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This editor is disruptive, bordering on WP:TENDENTIOUS, and this article is just the latest noise as everyone above has said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smuckola (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Servants of God. Randykitty (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Vakayil[edit]

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

The only independent source that I can find for this priest is the one from The New Indian Express cited in the article saying that he has been declared a servant of God, the first of four steps towards canonization. If he is eventually declared a saint then he will almost certainly be notable per WP:ANYBIO, but without any further sources being a servant of God is not enough. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, if the problems with targeting can be resolved; else, delete. In principle, the rational redirect target would be List of Servants of God. But that's a markedly incomplete list whose inclusion criteria are not immediately forthcoming. Complicating the issue, there's an apparent content fork at Candidates for sainthood. I'm neither willing nor, frankly, competent in the topic area to try to clean this up. And I think there's at least an outside question about whether such a list is tenable in the first place (if the latter of the two lists represents the rate that people would be added, a full historical accounting would be, erm, long). If that's all fixable, then a redirect here is the obvious choice. Otherwise... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Declared a Servant of God, so on his way to canonisation. I think he meets the notability threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing automatic about someone being declared a servant of God later being canonised, so the subject cannot be said to be "on his way to canonisation". This is a necessary, but far from sufficient, step on that path. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, he's on his way to canonisation... -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the sense that when I graduated from university I was on my way to a Nobel Prize. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to List of Servants of God). Redirect for the reasons stated by Nom - insufficient at this point - there are large numbers of SoG and being one doesn't make one notable. Additionally, since many of them don't make it to sainthood, deciding that reaching this level is equivalent because they will be saints is no more than WP:CRYSTAL. As to the redirect target, there appears to at least be some difference, but there are certainly contentfork issues and confusion. For the moment, one is so clear-cut that it makes logical sense. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:38, 17 January 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JamStudio.com[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NWEB. The Media section consists of 19 links it asserts all feature the product. However, all of these reviews happened over a short period of time and there's little indication the site has had a lasting impact on the Internet or the culture surrounding it. Furthermore, most of the reviews are hosted on blogs or social media sites e.g. StumbleUpon and eMusician. The other coverage, save for Fox, is mainly localised or lacks editorial oversight. SITH (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Just a comment, StraussInTheHouse... eMusician (Electronic Musician) is an actual magazine rather than a blog, and a reliable source if cited properly... it's just not clear from the citation link in the article if the review was copied from Electronic Musician to a personal web page, and without a proper citation it can't be verified. Richard3120 (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry, I understand what you mean now... that Electronic Musician is reliable, but because it's hosted on a blog site, it can't be verified. Richard3120 (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. None of the sources are substantial enough / reliable enough to support a claim of notability for this flash-in-the-pan website. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:45, 11 January 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. Tone 20:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Santhana Devan (upcoming film)[edit]

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

Film has been in production since January 2017, but nothing since, with no expected release date, if any. Fails WP:NFF. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: appears to fail all criteria of WP:NFILM. SITH (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG. When or if it eventually gets released with reliable sources coverage it can be recreated Atlantic306 (talk) 18:47, 12 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David D. Schaal[edit]

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

A non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Per source searches, no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources appears to exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he held a postion of leadership in a religious body that may have 250,000 members, but even that may be an overestimate of size. Nothing close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 10 January 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K. Scott Murphy[edit]

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

A non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources appears to exist, per source searching. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Community of Christ would be small for a Catholic Diocese. The question here would a high level sub-administrator of a diocese be notable. The answer is not with this level of sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 11 January 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gail E. Mengel[edit]

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

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches are not providing multiple instances of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a lack of multiple sources pointing towards notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 10 January 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. Tone 20:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manyata Embassy Business Park[edit]

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

Bog-standard business park. No indication of anything which sets it apart from any other business park Calton | Talk 15:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many people work there? If it's 150,000 (as the article seems to imply) that's a very large business park, the size of a city, and we should certainly be covering it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the largest IT parks in India (second largest) and perhaps the largest IT park in Bangalore. A query of news articles on google will result in a plethora of articles. A notable landmark in the city known to all. The article surely needs significant improvement to bring better context, history and more content of interest to a reader. But surely a notable place and a "keep".
Speedy keep per Arunram. The deletion rationale makes me think that the nominator did not do a WP:BEFORE. Dee 03 11:53, 12 January 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. Tone 20:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tamil films of 2020[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. It's only just 2019, we don't need a list of Tamil films that are coming out next year just yet. The cited coverage is sparse and the list only contains one film, therefore failing the purpose of... well... a list. SITH (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. AD ^Talk 15:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one film on the list has been in production since 2017, but shows no sign of actually being released. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've now nominated that article for deletion too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete God, we’re barely 9 days into 2019 and already people are whipping out the crystal ball.Trillfendi (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ridiculously unencyclopedic. --Michig (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Article can be recreated in 2020. Ajf773 (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Archive. It's not useful now, but will be in the future, might as well leave something for future wikipedians to build on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoCOBOL (talk • contribs) 08:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON, too speculative at this time Atlantic306 (talk) 19:00, 12 January 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. Tone 20:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Project Coin[edit]

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

Appears to be release notes, totally unsourced, fails WP:RELEASENOTES. SITH (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't really see the point of this. Even if there was an exercise to gather suggestions and sources existed, that doesn't make it of encyclopedic interest. --Michig (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Random notes with no source. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:41, 16 January 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. Tone 20:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mirabai Devi[edit]

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

The two cited interviews are all I get from my source searches, leading me to suspect Devi fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BIO due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. AD ^Talk 15:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AD ^Talk 15:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note the subject should note be confused with Mirabai or Mirabai Chanu who have similar names but they are notable and different.--DBig Xrayᗙ 15:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG non notable spiritual teacher that lacks significant coverage in independent reliable media. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing, source-wise, has changed since my September PROD. – Teratix ₵ 23:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 10:03, 12 January 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. Very clear consensus that notability is established and despite some clean-up issues doesn't foul overly afoul of the other issues initially raised. A more significant discussion was raised as to whether this was an unwarranted WP:CONTENTFORK, but consensus also agreed that it was a reasonable separation.

Discussion as to a page/name move can be raised as desired. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Christians in the modern era[edit]

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

In my opinion, this article (permalink) should be deleted. It is a huge Original Research and Synthesis. Because of the lack of secondary sources addressing the issue, the article has turned into a Directory and a big part of it is a hoax.

Not notable. The notability question has been placed in the talk page (and the relevant template in the article) but concerns were not addressed. There are plenty of articles describing Christian persecution in various places in the world. But we can not sum up the notability of persecution in different regions, to establish the notability of Christians in the world. Plus the phrase "in the modern era" is pretty vague. What exactly is the modern era? Modern history? The lack of secondary sources is evident from the first sentence which is not able to offer a valid definition of the article. Even the first reference does not even mention the word "Christian".
SYNTH The article is a huge Original Research and Synthesis. Many sources are not even talking about persecution, but about attacks on Christians. These attacks are have been upgraded to the status of "persecution". Ie in Israel, 3 teenagers have burned hundreds of Bibles, the article informs us.
Hoax. A large part of the article is a hoax. Claiming that there is Christian persecution in Europe, even in UK (which is not even a secular state) is ridiculus IMO. Hoax is the inevitable result of the SYNTH that has been taking place in the article.Cinadon36 (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, everything above my comment, including the nomination paragraph, was all written by one user (Cinadon36) --1990'sguy (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP - Persecution of Christians is an obviously notable topic (e.g., in Egypt, Iraq, China, Afghanistan, India) and there's sourcing in independent, reliable sources to show it is. E.g., 1 2 3 4 5 6. In terms of coverage of worldwide persecution this is also easy to find: 1 2 3 4. If the article is full of BS, then go and clean up the article: AFD is NOT cleanup. FOARP (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~Repurpose: per FOARP. The topic is clearly notable because of the vast amounts of coverage it's received, particularly in China. If you've got a problem with the title, take it to requested moves. If it's not an unambiguous hoax, improve it. SITH

User:StraussInTheHouse valid point, but Persecution of Christians which is notable, already exists and Nom failed to mention this. So you might want to reconsider. --DBig Xrayᗙ 22:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article in more detail, and its parent article, I see what you mean. The determination of "modern" does stink of original research, but if it could be made more objective and cleaned up I wouldn't be averse to a more meaningful content fork per WP:TOOLONG. But it does need to be made more encyclopedic, either by TLC or TNT. SITH (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either redirect and merge to Persecution of Christians or merge the (entire) modern era section from that article. For some bizarre reason, this article's hatnote implies that the modern era starts in 1989. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did consider this but there's a clear length issue with that article. 1989 is a weird starting point but ultimately that's a page-quality issue, not for AFD. FOARP (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and take any valid material into the Persecution of Christians removing the time restriction on that -----Snowded ^TALK 21:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic is obviously notable. The article is obviously not a hoax. Deletion is not cleanup. Srnec (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Either redirect and merge This is a bit forky, and much of it seems dubious at best. Nor is there any clear definition of that "modern era" means.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A discussion is currently taking place about refactoring the various articles on Christian persecution, and depending on the result of that discussion the content in this article may merged elsewhere, but there is an abundance of sources relating to this topic and this article can not be reasonably argued to be non-notable or otherwise worthy of deletion. The nominating editor appears to believe that events need to fit their particular criteria to be condsidered "persecution", a view which I understand but for which they have not obtained consensus. -- LWG ^talk 14:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LWG for understanding my view, but my redflag is not "notability" but the violation of WP:OR. OR is a reason for Deletetion according to policy. Year 1989 is placed as the the first year of modern age which is absurd and OR that we can not deal with. Merging with "persecution of Christians and avoiding turning the article into a directory, is the best solution IMHO. Cinadon36 (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could get behind that were Persecution of Christians not already WP:TOOBIG. I don't consider the OR issue as serious as you do: when there is an abundance of material on a topic we have to decide how to split it up, and if we did that poorly we should fix the article, not delete it. The "modern era" problem can be solved simply by renaming the article and/or removing the hatnote. In short, there are a number of possible solutions, but deletion of the article is not a good option and other options should be discussed on the respective talk pages instead of here. -- LWG ^talk 15:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I stopped taking the AfD seriously once I saw the unfounded claims of hoaxing. Article at this moment also seems good enough for drawing sensible conclusion. Excelse (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - while article is quite a mess at this point, I think it is possible that it could be salvaged if someone actually put in required time and effort. On a side note, the current title is ridiculous, if scope is intended to be about the Post-Cold War era then put it in the title!--Staberinde (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Christian persecution in the modern era is a well-sourced and clearly notable topic, clearly meeting WP:GNG. Numerous examples of modern-day Christian persecution exist, as a brief internet search I did found: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 --1990'sguy (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course, this article is obviously notable and should be kept. I should mention that it is very fishy that the same editor who created the article called "Christian persecution complex" is the same individual nominating this article for deletion. Is this an attempt to try to create an ideological narrative? desmay (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an overwhelmingly notable topic, the article can be improved so original research is removed and only referenced content is used WP:AFD is not cleanup Atlantic306 (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or if not Merge This is a notable topic. Maybe some clean up needed but there's not a case for deletion. Another alternative would be to merge the topic with the main Persecution of Christians page if there's too much overlap. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve to solve any NPOV and content issues. The main issue is not whether the persecution of Christians in the modern day is notable--it is, as many others have pointed out. The main issue is instead whether this should be a separate page from Persecution of Christians per policies like WP:PAGEDECIDE. I believe that this should be a separate page for several reasons. Firstly, I think it's the right editorial judgment. Christians being subjugated under the Roman Empire is a fundamentally different topic from Christians in the Middle East today being denied civil rights. Secondly, reliable sources see these as two different topics; you will never see BBC News give the context to the current crackdowns in China as "the Roman Empire also persecuted Christians." Finally, the fact that news articles are likely to continue reporting on this subject means there will be a lot to write about. --Leugen9001 (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no issue with keeping it since it is a notable issue - e.g. some news articles just in the last month [7][8][9]. I see it as easily passing WP:GNG. The main problem I see with the article is NPOV (and the odd decision to use 1989 as the starting date), some of the entries cannot be described as persecution. That however is not a deletion issue, and AfD is not the place to tidy up articles. Using "hoax" as a rationale is just plain ridiculous. Hzh (talk) 21:05, 15 January 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MICM Music Dataset[edit]

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

Non-notable dataset. The article is based entirely on the author's own publication and lacks any other independent expert sources that cover this specific dataset in sufficient detail (refs #2-3 are not about MICM and their usage for a "comparison" is original research and synthesis per WP:SYNTH). A search for other secondary expert sources revealed no coverage at all. GermanJoe (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCVC Speech Dataset for a similar article with closely-related arguments. GermanJoe (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As anyone can see on Google scholar, Researchgate, Arxiv, and other scientific sources, This dataset is a notable dataset and accepted as an standard in one conference and one ISI journal. Also the dataset is downloadable for free to see weather it is fake or not. In any conference and such a journal, also in arxiv there is a judgment process which indicates weather a publication and a dataset is notable or not. this dataset is a new dataset so it needs an opportunity to be in Wikipedia for getting more citations. If this article will be removed from Wikipedia it would be less opportunity to the research society to use this unique dataset. Also the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCVC Speech Dataset that was in Wikipedia for more than 9 months was nominated to be deleted that makes me wonder how it could be possible that such an article after 9 months of existence in Wikipedia nominated for deleting. Both of datasets just by one person(GermanJoe). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabemalek (talk • contribs) 13:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Arguments like this dataset is a new dataset so it needs an opportunity to be in Wikipedia for getting more citations show a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose. This kind of promotional showcasing to raise the topic's citation count is prohibited on Wikipedia. GermanJoe (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - If a dataset has no Wikipedia page it would be very difficult for research community to find and refer to it.Sabemalek (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabemalek: - that's irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't exist to raise the profile of certain articles in the research community. We are a tertiary source and depend on sources to demonstrate the reliability of what is included. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Conferences and journals decide what papers to accept based on their usefulness and interest to the research community. We decide what articles to accept based on the existence of independent, reliable, secondary sources. I'm not seeing any of those, so delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 17 January 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development[edit]

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

Apparently I started this article ten years ago in an attempt to assist an editor who had created it in the wrong place. I perhaps shouldn't have bothered, because it fails WP:ORG. Pontificalibus 12:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, no WP:SIGCOV. We all make/made mistakes, particularly back when WP policy was less well defined and we were all less familiar with it. FOARP (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There has been some critical coverage around the organisation's closure: in Le Temps on 5 December, in 24heures (paywalled), and in a Forbes article on January 3. AllyD (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the sources found by AllyD, I found a few passing mentions, but not enough to meet WP:NORG. The article itself is badly written from a WP:MOS point of view, and sourced only to the org's own website. If this were an org that came close to meeting WP:NORG, it might be worth keeping and putting in the effort to fix the structural problems with the article, but it's not, so it's not. I'd have no objection to somebody writing a new article on this topic if they could find better sources (or even adopting this one in draft/user space to work on), but it's not worth keeping in its current state. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 17 January 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 Open Mainframe Project. Tone 20:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Open mainframe[edit]

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

The article is about a non-notable neologism. 99Electrons (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Open Mainframe Project. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Open Mainframe Project, the only clear application of the term --DannyS712 (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is open mainframe a term associated with the Open Mainframe Project? The article is unreferenced, and searching openmainframeproject.org for examples of this term only finds partial matches. 99Electrons (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any reason to believe that the Open Mainframe Project uses this term; it reads more like somebody imagined what the definition should be. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Open Mainframe Project as a plausible search term. There is no sourced content to merge. --Michig (talk) 18:09, 9 January 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IET Smart Cities[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal, has not even started publishing yet. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article de-PRODded by article creator with reason "The journal is published by IET - one of the world oldest and established institution. the journal is new but definitely will be indexed. I prefer you allow time for editors to expand the content and cite additional independent references rather than proposing fast delete." As I dropped my crystal ball yesterday, I maintain that this is way too soon. PROD reason stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and spectacular failures of WP:N / WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:58, 10 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Times and Seasons (blog)[edit]

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

A non-notable blog that does not meet WP:WEBCRIT. Source searches and those in the article are only providing passing mentions, and those mentions are limited to stating what people have posted on the blog. Finding no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about the blog itself. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NWEB. Unfortunately it can't be A7'd because it makes a credible claim of significance. SITH (talk) 19:27, 9 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Falling Sickness (band)[edit]

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

Fails all criteria of WP:BAND, I see little evidence of passing WP:GNG either. SITH (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 11:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article contains a discography of the band, but all of the entries in it are in red links, suggesting they are not notable enough for Wikipedia. Also, a Google search for Falling Weakness does not fall throw up many hits for the band until one gets to the Wikipedia article. Vorbee (talk) 18:26, 9 January 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. Tone 20:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Smyser[edit]

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

Having toured with notable musicians doesn't make oneself a notable musician. Little evidence Smyser passes WP:MUSICBIO. SITH (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are passing mentions here and there, perhaps an album review, but he appears to be a musician who has a local reputation only and no significant coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't meet any of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. (I forgot to mention: there is a 'biography' at All About Jazz, but they allow self-submissions of such material, so it's not independent of the subject.) EddieHugh (talk) 22:42, 15 January 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. Sandstein 19:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bounding Main[edit]

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

This band exists but there no indication that they are Wikipedia notable per WP:BAND. The article has been around for awhile and there appears to have been some COI editing to it over the years. There's quite a number of sources being cited, but many appear to be WP:PRIMARY or otherwise trivial types of mentions, while most of the albums appear to be self-published. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2018 (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/2018 December 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 09:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because their nine trips to perform in other countries between 2008–2017 satisfies WP:BAND criteria #4. Johnson487682 (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Criterion #4 states that they need to have received "non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources" of these tours, not just have toured. All of the sources cited for their overseas performances seem to be just name mentions and primary sources like press releases, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This source appears to be significant coverage, possibly this one as well? I can't read the articles because of GDPR (*Rolls eyes*) just the snippets that are visible from the Google search. FOARP (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link is an article about a parade in Racine in November 2018. All that is says about the band is the following:
  Bounding Main, a Racine-based vocal group, is set to perform a unique blend of maritime and holiday themed songs. Since forming in 2003, they have been performing shows filled with spirit, humor and harmony all over the United States and Europe.
  That's doesn't seem like significant coverage at all to me. The band is mentioned by name a single time and with a brief promotional sounding description. The second link is an article about a Renaissance Faire the band appeared at in 2012. There's a little more about the band in this article than the parade article, but again it seems more trivial coverage than significant coverage (at least to me). The band is mentioned in a section titled "Familiar faces" and the focus seems to be more on one of the band's members than the band itself. Local bands appearing at local festivals often get mentioned in articles written for local newspapers by local writers, especially if the band has a local following and has appeared at the festival before; however, I don't think that kind of local notability equals Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bounding Main was recorded by the British Library's Sound Archive. See reference on their site. They have been interviewed and had radio segments aired in the Netherlands and on Armed Forces Radio. Their music is played internationally. Please reconsider deletion as they are relevant in the maritime music genre.

British Library's Sound Archive: Selected by the British Library for preservation in their sound archive. Full live performance recorded at the Falmouth International Sea Shanty Festival, Falmouth, Cornwall, UK, June 2017.[36] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shantyfan (talk • contribs) 02:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am NOT A FAN of such blatantly promotional edits from a single-user account but there's a degree of notability here to be found under a lot of cruft. --Lockley (talk) 18:44, 16 January 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon Expression[edit]

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

As per source searches, this is a non-notable podcast that does not meet WP:WEBCRIT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My WP:BEFORE did not find any significant coverage for this podcast. PS - the previous AFD discussion was clearly wrongly decided: every argument in favour was WP:ILIKEIT, WP:FAME, or WP:USEFUL FOARP (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The argument that notable people were interviewed on the blog used 7 years ago during the last nomination, does not actually show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 11 January 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 a WP:SNOW keep. The consensus is that the subject passes WP:NPOL. I noticed the 10 Jan- 17 Jan comment, but I feel there is enough consensus that likely will not change for that one day anyways. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yadav Nathwani[edit]

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

Former senator (maybe?), believed to be used by the subject and their relations/colleagues to promote subject. No immediate notability seen through current cites and historical ones Nightfury 08:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from filer:- DeltaQuad, I note the page is fully protected, would you be able to add the AfD template to the page? Thanking you. Nightfury 08:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Note to the closer, this should be closed only 7 days from when the notice was posted 01:59, January 10, 2019.‎ -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 08:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 08:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:POLITICIAN says "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." The subject of this article has been a member of a state legislature, and is therefore presumed notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep members of state senates are default notable. It does not matter if they have short terms of office. As long as they serve any term at all they are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Members of subnational legislatures are considering notable per WP:POLITICIAN--Mpen320 (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:POLITICIAN is unambiguous -- it doesn't matter how long someone serves in a state senate; as long as he or she is a member of that state senate, he or she is notable. That's a decision that's been made through a longstanding consensus. I created this article, and I have no ties to the subject. Whether the subject edited the article after I created it is frankly irrelevant as long as it's not promotional or inaccurate. Jarvishunt (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considering he held two offices at the same time, the whole thing seems sketchy to me.George Orwell Peterson (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except one of those offices is considered notable per WP:POLITICIAN and whether or not you think someone holding two offices at the same time is sketchy does not change WP:Notability.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree I don't agree, this guy is not Notability.George Orwell Peterson (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLITICIAN says "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." It has already been established that the length of tenure is not a deciding factor. What is your objection to notability other than you don't like the guy?--Mpen320 (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would pass WP:NPOL as a former member of a state legislature. I think the concern for some here may be that Nathwani was appointed in the six-week period between the 2018 election and the swearing-in of a new State Senate. If that's the case, it may be a slight grey area (did he actually get sworn in, or was he a placeholder? Was the Senate in session during this time?) but regardless I think that existing notability policies still apply. Could use more WP:RS, but passes notability checks. Bkissin (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was sworn into office (see Senate Republican press release here. His profile on the Illinois General Assembly website is here. He even sponsored 4 bills. It was a caretaker appointment. Chris Nybo resigned after losing to Suzy Glowiak. Nathwani was a full voting member of the Illinois Senate even if his term was from November 2018 until January 2019.--Mpen320 (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some WP:COI concerns, with the subject of the article making changes to the page. Bkissin (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So those changes can just be eliminated or revised, correct? Why delete the whole article?--Mpen320 (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that I voted to keep the article. I was not saying that the entire article should be deleted, I was merely voicing concerns about COI and trying to determine the details here. Remember to assume good faith with other users. Bkissin (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean accuse or to come off as accusing you of anything. I was just commenting on the COI itself. The deletion and the COI seemed like separate issues. I'm sorry I failed to make that point.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was created by Mr. Nathwani See Conflict of Interest in Wikipedia and COIPOLITICALIt should be clear this guy has very little notability save, as a local political "Wonk" insider appointed, as place holder and now is hoping to use Wikipedia to help launch his political career. George Orwell Peterson (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you read above or review the article's history, you'll see that Jarvishunt (talk) created this article. Jarvishunt has been a Wikipedia contributor since 2008 and has no connection to the subject. A user that is likely the subject added additional content in violation of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. You are correct that conduct is unacceptable. However, any content added in violation can be removed or revised to meet Wikipedia:Neutrality.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- sounds like a meat puppet of NathwaniGeorge Orwell Peterson (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, false. I created the article, and I have no ties to the subject. Zero. Never have met him, couldn't pick him out of a police lineup, don't have an opinion of him, I'm not a Republican anyhow. But all that is irrelevant (especially my opinion of the subject). The reason I created this article is that I read in the Daily Herald that he was appointed to the Illinois Senate. I looked for a Wikipedia page on him and didn't see one, so I created one. Beyond that, however, what we're here to discuss isn't whether he's held two elected positions or not (that's irrelevant), or whether he's a political "wonk" (not even sure what that means -- are you trying to call him a political hack or an opportunist?). No, all we're here to discuss is: Is this subject notable by Wikipedia's well-established standards? The answer by a clear consensus that has been formed among Wikipedia users over the years is yes. Being in the upper legislature of a U.S. state automatically confers notability, regardless of the duration of that individual's time in office. Therefore, the subject of this article is notable. Jarvishunt (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jarvis Hunt is a local Wheaton/DuPage historical figure associated with Chicago Golf Club, so I assume you are a local guy, so you know, Mr. Nathwani is a local political Hack/Opportunist, regarding his Notability, this article is self-serving. But, if "the consensus" decides to keep this article, it should be very short, no-more than one paragraph. George Orwell Peterson (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia articles do not have to follow size restrictions. No matter what you think about the size of the person's notability claim, there is no such thing as "this person is only notable enough to have one short paragraph" vs. "that other person is notable enough to have a longer article" — if a person passes a notability criterion, then their article is always allowed to be as long or as short as the depth of reliable sourcing about them allows us to write. Notability criteria only govern whether a person qualifies to have an article at all or not, and once that test has been passed they do not impose any caps on how long their article is or isn't allowed to be. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability test for state legislators does not only attach to current incumbents, as was claimed by at least one person in the edit history — everybody who has ever served in the state legislature is always eligible for an article regardless of whether they're still in office today or not. The article does not read unduly promotionally in its current form, and any minor conflict of interest problems can be dealt with through the normal editing process — but concerning the fact that the subject has edited the article himself, the only edits I can actually see in the article history that are signed "Yadav15" just involve perfectly reasonable formatting corrections and a perfectly neutral statement of the name of his successor. Literally not a one of them actually lapses into the self-promotionalism issues that our COI rules actually concern themselves with — article subjects are not prevented from editing the article themselves to make purely factual edits that don't pose any WP:NPOV problems, the rule is just that they're not allowed to use Wikipedia as a personal PR platform or a venue for giving themselves the last word in an NPOV dispute. All in all, there's no serious reason why the article should be deleted at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What constitutes "Self-Promotion"? George Orwell Peterson (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Writing the article in a tone that reads more like an advertisement (or a press release, or a campaign brochure) than like a neutral, objective encyclopedia article. That can and does happen on Wikipedia, but it hasn't happened in this instance. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep technically passes WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 05:54, 16 January 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 HyperScan. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S+core[edit]

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

The article's topic, an architecture called S+core and processors based on it, does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. I could not find any significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources on Google. Of the 7 references in the article at the time of nomination:

#1is a primary source (the company website)
#2 is an incidental mention of S+core in some materials related to Linux kernel development, eg. notes written by SW developers for SW developers
#3 is an incidental mention of S+core in a news article about the Linux kernel
#4 is a blog, which isn't a reliable source per WP:BLOGS
#5 is an article about a HP calculator tear down that has an incidental mention of an unrelated Sunplus product
#6 is a primary source (a press release) about Sunplus, not S+core
#7 is a blog, see #4

99Electrons (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HyperScan. Seems to be only "major" product using this architecture and one simple sentence about S+core can be added to the Hardware specifications section. Pavlor (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HyperScan per Pavlor's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 19:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:35, 9 January 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Musics (magazine)[edit]

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

Not enough sources exist. Questionable notability. Vmavanti (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong disagree on deletion if we can find a source or two. It ran for four years and many important names in the relevant field were associated with it; this is the kind of article that typifies why I come to Wikipedia -- easily accessible information on something that i would otherwise be ignorant about. PaulCHebert (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 06:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep: This is a valuable resource for Wikipedia to have but I understand the doubts re. lack of sources, and unlike some of the other rock-related articles of this era of which this might be said, this does not deal with a territory that The Times etc. picked up on after the fact. Are there any academic texts available which could back up the claims made here? It's conceivable. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand when someone ways this is a valuable resource. I can understand why you would say that if you knew something about the subject. But as editors, particularly in the context of deletion discussions, we're supposed to evaluate the article, not the subject. An article with no sources is worthless because there's no way to verify whether any of it is true. My approach would be the same if the article were called "George Washington". That's a valuable subject. But unsourced or poorly sourced? No. It has no value. If someone said, "But it's George Washington!" that would not persuade me. Some deprodders give the impression that if a Wikipedia article is deleted, it will lead to starvation or genocide. How many articles does Wikipedia have? Over five million?
Vmavanti (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: per WP:NEXIST, the sources don't have to be cited in the article to be counted towards notability. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 07:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful delete - It's hard to find sources for this because the title ("Musics") is so generic. Searching using the long title I could not find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to back up the notability of this magazine and as such it fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As everyone else has already found, it's a hard title to search for. I have found several works citing articles in it - the book Rhythmus: Spuren eines Wechselspiels in Künsten und Wissenschaften [10], and papers 'MODULATEURS EN ANNEAU ET SAXOPHONE : LE DISPOSITIF D'ECRITURE MIXTE ET L'INTERPRETATION PARTICIPATIVE DANS L'ŒUVRE LE PATCH BIEN TEMPERE II' [11] and 'Indeterminacy, Free Improvisation, and the Mixed Avant-Garde:: Experimental Music in London, 1965–1975' [12]. Far Out Magazine has an article about the launch of the reprint (with some text based on this Wikipedia article??) [13], and a journal called Poetry Information had a piece about it after the first 3 issues had come out [14]. I tend to think that, if these are findable, there would be more, possibly not digitised, possibly not easily findable because of the rather generic title, but there is certainly a lot of content here that cannot currently be referenced to independent sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State of the article notwithstanding, there are clearly sources to be found. The magazine's short-form title does indeed make searches, shall we say, daunting. Nevertheless, there's some discussion of the magazine in this book by David Toop and Chris Atton's introduction to this Routledge-published work on alternative media. I strongly suspect that there are quite a few more sources out there; there was likely some discussion of the title in other music periodicals, but the issues of works like Ear, Coda, and Perpetual Frontier do not appear to be available (much less searchable!) online, although the infuriating tease of snippet view suggests that Coda, at least, had something to say about it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on one's stance towards doctoral dissertations as reliable sources, there's also some discussion of the magazine's influence in this thesis. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. The article needs significant improvement but the topic belongs in the encyclopedia. --Lockley (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough reliable independent sources as listed above by Squeamish Ossifrage and RebeccaGreen demonstrates the magazine meets the WP notability criteria. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:31, 16 January 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County[edit]

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

I could only find this book source for significant coverage. The other sources that I found were routine local coverage. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 06:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very Week Keep Just about gets over the line for notability based on the following sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6. The first book reference is easily sigcov, the others just rise above passing coverage since they discuss the Land Conservancy and its holdings and activities but in each case only barely. FOARP (talk) 08:15, 9 January 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Samie[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful.

This is more or less an Ad. Saqib (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability; looks like an autobio. samee converse 18:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like WP:TOOSOON, no coverage in reliable sources found. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:52, 16 January 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Williams and the Hoodoo[edit]

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

Reads like an advert and looking at the sources I don't think the coverage they've received is in-depth enough to pass band notability criteria. SITH (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It indeed seems WP:ADVERT. The band's website lists apparently every bit of press they've received, some of which is referenced in the article. It might take a while to vet these to find those that are indeed notable. Most look small time or routine, but there may be a few good ones, especially among the niche Blues scene coverage. A couple of things need to be pointed out, though. The claim that they've been reviewed on NPR is disingenuous; WVPE.88.1 is merely the Elkhart, Wisconsin school system's radio station. Like many school radio programming, they partner with NPR content (as well as other public broadcast services), but emphatically is not the same as featured on NPR as a qualifying reliable source. Also, the reference from the AV Club is not that notable entity, but rather, a section of a local newspaper with the same name. Finally, to be on a first round ballot is for a Grammy is not a notable achievement. It is, in fact, nothing more than having one's entry accepted. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete A fair amount of local (Wisconin) coverage, but not quite enough to meet WP:MUSIC. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I commented on this 2 weeks ago without voting, pending time to review all sources. There is some niche blues publication/website attention, but cumulatively they do not add up to enough significance to break out beyond run-of-the-mill type coverage. As pointed out above, other sources (most, in fact) are local but they, too, are fairly run-of-the-mill. Other facts in the article contain a fair amount of puffery for minor achievements. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:47, 11 January 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Makin[edit]

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

Non-notable radio personality, fails GNG, no awards of note, refs are mostly mentions, seems like promo Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear failure of WP:GNG Spiderone 11:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. AD ^Talk 07:25, 9 January 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Organizing (structure)[edit]

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

Lacks notability as an individual topic and would be sufficiently covered by adding in the material into the disambig page Organizing. In its current (and former state before I edited it), the article is basically a definition of "Organizing" (WP:NOTDICTIONARY), which can already be found on Wiktionary. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see from the history that this was a couple of sentences split out from Organizing (management). It seems to be nothing more than a definition of one sense of organize. Given the parenthetical, I don't see any potential for other content. Cnilep (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No Vote an unsourced dictdef, with a bizarre disambiguation. That said, there certainly must be some article on the profession of Marie Kondo. Professional organizing is very promotional (though I've removed the worst of it), and Orderliness is another bad dictdef. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

power~enwiki, I would say that Professional organizing could cover Kondo's profession, however, imho KonMari method is the best spot for her philosophy. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:47, 9 January 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) DannyS712 (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yaakov Glasman[edit]

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

there does not seem to be any formal position of leadership, except the rabbinical council of one australian state. the article is furthermore advocacy,with puffery and assumptions: a consistent stand; :forceful in his view... such language is always suspect--it is indicative of either unimaginative PR agent, or unwitting copying of their style. It contains local trivial about the football club he supports, It also brings in his very notable cousins and uncles, but I know that within at least some portions of the Jewish community, family does count for notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He held the position of the Australian rabbinic association. He has been a player in the Royal Commission about abuse, having taken the stand to question the rabbi's roles in the scandal. He has taken a stand against homophobia in the Orthodox community. This is not a puff piece (and I have no direct connection to the subject), it is an article about one of the most high profile rabbis in Australia Playlet (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how being "elected to be the president of the new Rabbinical Council of Australia and New Zealand" is not a formal position of leadership. I also do not see puffery - it is a clear reflection of what this person said, and how he said it, as reported in media coverage of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, and was in clear contrast to many other rabbis who gave evidence. I note that WP:RELPEOPLE says "In particular, an individual will often meet notability guidelines if they #2 "Played an important role in a significant religious event which itself received considerable coverage in sources." The Royal Commission was not a religious event, but it was an investigation into child abuse in religious organisations, in which the subject of this article played an important role - and a quite different role from some other rabbis. (I have no connection to the subject at all, but was aware of the media coverage of the royal commission.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be an important Jewish figure in terms of the Royal Commission, elected to be president as noted above.Berek (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to me to be more than sufficient IRS to support WP:NEXIST to support GNG. Sufficient also to add further content to article. Aoziwe (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BASIC no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. In my opinion Jewish newspapers are not sufficiently independent sources in these circumstances. I am surprised to see no notability guidelines for religious figures. ~~He did not give evidence at the royal commission into child sexual abuse - he was excused~~. He may have made comments to the media, but he was not a major player. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see where holding a formal position of leadership makes a person notable. A quick google search does not reveal any coverage outside that already cited in the article. He may be well known within the Jewish community, but he is not well known outside the Jewish community. I don't see the article as being a puff piece. 8==8 Boneso (gnaw) 20:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He did give evidence at the Royal Commission even though he was excused Playlet (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are notability guidelines for religious figures, which I linked to above. Glasman did give evidence at the Royal Commission, as reported in the sources. Also, SBS, ABC Radio National and the Herald Sun are not Jewish media. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your correction RebeccaGreen and for pointing me to WP:RELPEOPLE. I withdraw my mention about evidence at the royal commission. I maintain that there is no significant coverage of Glasman in in independent reliable sources; in the sources mentioned he is called on for comment only, or the evidence he gave at the royal commission is covered. In relation to WP:RELPEOPLE, the royal commission was not a religious event and it was also not exclusively an enquiry into religious institutions, among other institutions, Surf lifesaving Australia, the Australian Defence Force and Scouts were in the crosshairs; the major media coverage related to the Catholic and Anglican churches. I think people like Glasman deserve a page, but sadly I don't see that meets the notability criteria. 8==8 Boneso (gnaw) 21:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that WP:RELPEOPLE is not a policy or guideline, but appears in an essay on WikiProject Religion. Regardless of what either of us think it is not binding. 8==8 Boneso (gnaw) 21:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nominator. I am also disturbed by the PR-type language here and the trivial details. The main argument for notability boils down to his outspokenness on various issues, but the article has a SYNTH feel to it, like the page creator was digging up every mention in a newspaper to build an article. Aside from his views, he doesn't stand out as notable. Yoninah (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think. I was going to say "delete" until I read the claim "inaugural president of the new Rabbinical Council of Australia and New Zealand". If that organisation is really the peak body of Rabbis in two countries then 1) it is worthy of an article and 2) so are its presidents (but not most other members). The article still needs a lot of work. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – Definitely passes GNG, without a doubt. I don't see any specific guidelines that he fits into but regardless, he is notable. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 14:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject person is the head of the Rabbinical Council of Australia and New Zealand (see here), which should be trivially considered a "notable organization." Makes the cut. -The Gnome (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I agree with the nominator that the text currently contains a lot of fat, e.g. "He has been very outspoken about his desire to accept LGBT Jews into the Orthodox community," which is an arbitrary and significant amplification of what the cited source states. -The Gnome (talk)

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. Per WP:SNOW. Consensus is that it meets WP:GEOLAND. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mocho Mountains[edit]

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

Sole source is a dictionary. Not sure it passes our notability guidelines for geographic features. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 06:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 06:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easy keep per WP:GEOLAND, a quick web search brought up a number of sources, I have added two quickly to the article. SportingFlyer talk 07:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
EASY KEEP per WP:GEOLAND FOARP (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND, WP:GEOPURP (source:[15])--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 11:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GEO, per above, someone close this ... please ... quick. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:16, 9 January 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cadu Salles[edit]

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

Article unsourced. A search for sources indicates that the subject is not notable. Mccapra (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete → WP:NOTRESUME. Trillfendi (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only sources is the subjects website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 10 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

City of Cities[edit]

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

Was originally a redirect to Paris, converted into a well-meaning but unsourced DAB. Google Search gives results for the Ruhr region, Sydney, Guangzhou, Santiago de Chile, etc. I'm not sure anything can be done for this, perhaps a soft-redirect to Wiktionary for the definition "a large city"? power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to just delete it. I'm not sure the soft redirect makes sense. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 07:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - considering the current state and any scope for improvement, I don't see any benefit to keep seeing as it gives zero information about what a "city of cities" may actually mean, nor links to anything substansive. At best, it may become an article offering a vague yet questionable defintion of what some may think it means; even if it adapts to that, we already have wiktionary. A redirect anywhere would be reliant upon a verifiable source. I think just deleting is best. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be a fairly common phrase that can be applied to just about any city. The first five of the Google Books results linked above show me books about Sydney, London, Milan, Christchurch and New York, and I'm not quite sure what to make of the sixth. I think readers would be better served by having nothing under this title than a mish-mash of cities to which this name has been applied. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a valid disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:57, 12 January 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. Consensus is that the article should be kept thanks to RebeccaGreen's addition of sources. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolph Marks[edit]

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

Both offline and online source searches (WorldCat, Scholar, Books, Google) reveal a few passing mentions but nothing which would satisfy notability guidelines for creative professionals or people in general. User:Jmabel - courtesy ping for deprod. SITH (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on the article talk page, I realize we are short on independent documentation of notability here, but that's not uncommon for people who wrote almost entirely in Yiddish, especially if virtually all writing about them was in Yiddish. Few, if any, Yiddish-language newspapers can be found online; there are not all that many books about Yiddish-language performing in any language other than Yiddish, and those in Yiddish are not well catalogued.

Jacob Adler, the one citation I have here, was by any standard among the half-dozen most important actors in the history of Yiddish theater. Many would account him the most important. I'm pretty comfortable saying that if he considered Marks worth singling out for mention in his memoir as someone who had a brief but notable career in the 1890s, he knew whereof he spoke. - Jmabel | Talk 17:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The GNG is very clear we need multiple sources, one source is never enough. One can not argue that sources might exist, one needs to demonstrate what these sources are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider that to be the case in reality. One really reliable source in a place with worldwide coverage is sufficient. We have , for example, kept thousands of bio articles on account of their being covered as a NYT editorial obit. The GNG is a summary, and needs to be interpreted according to reason.

Keep until a search for proper sources can be made by someone competent to do so. There were in that period 4 (or perhaps 5 )Yiddish language daily newspapers in NYC, all of which covered the Yiddish theater extensively. There are additionally many books available, I think mostly in Yiddish. You're not going to find this in Gbooks or in any of the newspaper indexes. At the very least, draftify, I'm asking one or two of the people I know. . DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I could go with draftify, sure. SITH (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is actually a fair amount in the digitised papers in Newspapers.com. The Philadelphia Inquirer called him a "well known and clever comedian" when the United Hebrew Opera Co appeared there in 1893 [16]; a review in the Philadelphia Times said he deserved the applause he received [17], and a review in the The Philadelphia Inquirer said there was "a vein of clever comedy throughout the piece, the chief promoter of which was Rudolph Marks" [18]. In the same year a paper called Der Waechter ran a contest for the most popular young actor (reported in The World, New York) [19], which was narrowed down to Marks and another, but Marks went to court saying his name and photo could not be used (this report describes him as an actor at the Thalia Theater and law student at the University of the City of New York). By 1900, Marks was acting as counsel for theater managers against the newly formed Hebrew Actors' Union [20], [21]. In 1901, there were efforts to start a Yiddish theater in Chicago, and there was a performance of a play called The Bowery Tramp by "a New York lawyer, Rudolph Marks, who was formerly a Yiddish actor" [22] In 1904, there are small mentions of him as a Chicago lawyer "who has made a specialty of theatrical law" [23], and in 1907 as a lawyer of 320 Broadway (again engaged by theater managers) [24]. A 1903 report of a court case describes him as "better known as a writer of Yiddish plays and as an actor of Shakepearean parts in the Bowery theaters than as a lawyer" [25]. His plays were performed in Connecticut in 1911 ("the great comedy success Chaim in America") [26] and Kentucky in 1912 (The Shop Girl) [27]. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle had an obituary when he died in 1930 aged 63 [28] - apparently his full name was Rudolph Marks Rodkinson; he was born in Odessa, went to England aged 15 and appeared on the stage there, then arrived in New York aged 19. He worked as a lawyer for 32 years, and had a son and two daughters. Plenty of coverage even without access to sources in Yiddish. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added the references I found, plus some information and quotes, so the article now has more than just one sentence. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. FOARP (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rebecca's expansion seems sufficient to confirm the subject's notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:HEY, Kudos to the indefatigable Rebecca Green.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:54, 15 January 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advocis[edit]

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

No reliable sources covering it in depth, fails WP:GNG. Most sources covering it are just repeats of press releases made by Advocis itself. The article claims that Advocis is a self regulatory agency for insurance agents, yet this is clearly false as Advocis is a lobbying organization split from IIROC's predecessor as it would be a conflict of interest for a lobbying organization to also be a regulatory organization. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added some sources from The Globe and Mail and the CBC, although I'm undecided if they push the page past WP:CORPDEPTH. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : The Globe and Mail article is about the use of artificial intelligence for financial planning as discussed in a symposium held by Advocis, but this CBC report and this one place the association front and center at the need for regulating the industry. In any case, this is an association grouping some twelve thousand professionals in the finance and investment sector, a significant lobbying entity and it's not so easy to ignore it. -The Gnome (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I found some other minor coverage mentioning the group's advocacy efforts [[29]][[30]] (the latter is more a rehash of a press release), but no in-depth profile that would put them into my weak keep territory. For example, the only organization history I could find is a letter they sent to the Canadian Department of Finance [[31]]. This doesn't quite meet WP:GNG for me. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:11, 17 January 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 3:10 to Yuma (2007 film). Sandstein 09:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Prince[edit]

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

This is an article about a movie character. It's been deleted twice, and recreated with a thin claim to notability, essentially that this character was featured in UGO Networks "Best Second-in-commands." The other references are about Ben Foster's portrayal of the character, not the character per se. Most of this article is trivia (e.g., the gear the character uses, and clothing), and as such belongs in a fandom wiki, not Wikipedia. There's nothing here to support WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Thanks, and have a}Happy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Thanks, and have a}Happy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Three-Ten to Yuma.--73.137.178.251 (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Three-Ten to Yuma as suggested above. --Lockley (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the sourced material to 3:10 to Yuma (2007 film) as a majority of the article is about Foster's portrayal of the character, and then redirect to Three-Ten to Yuma, as that is the article on the original book. Aoba47 (talk) 02:10, 15 January 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. Sandstein 09:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battalion 609[edit]

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

Unsure this passes WP:NFILM. First and last references are the only coverage beyond a mere cast list and release date, sources 2, 5 and 8 are duplicates of source 9. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. SITH (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @StraussInTheHouse: New references have been added and article should not be deleted as its an upcoming film based on Indo-Pakistani war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FossilNeil (talk • contribs) 17:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not speculating anything. Everything has been cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FossilNeil (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Per WP:HEY. FOARP (talk) 08:17, 9 January 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. I internally debated keeping as a DAB page per discussion, but that would require a complete re-write, and frankly anyone can do that just as easily after a delete, maybe even easier. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Potentate[edit]

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

A dictionary definition (WP:DICDEF), and a pretty dubious one too, tagged as unsourced (WP:V) since 2007. If we strip out all the unsourced and/or dicdef content, there's nothing left, and no obvious redirect target comes to mind. (No, Ruler isn't it.) Sandstein 23:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, as the article is mostly just definition and I don't see how it could be made encyclopedic. Potential redirect targets might be Absolute monarchy or Dictator, but the match is imprecise. Cnilep (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak convert to a dab page. In addition to the head of the Shriners, there's also the three-time winner of the Welsh Champion Hurdle and an alternate name for a Power in Christian angelology#Choirs in medieval theology. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's ... possible, I guess? But these are all very obscure and/or minor topics, and none of them has an article. I'm not sure whether that warrants a dab page. But I'm ok with one being created after deletion. Sandstein 21:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak disambiguate per Clarityfiend, but has anyone actually checked online sources to ensure that this is not an encyclopedic and notable subject? No one here seems to have done WP:BEFORE. I certainly haven't. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

potential article. Draftify. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE prr WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This is a common English noun, OED: "A monarch, prince, ruler, esp. an autocratic one. Also: a powerful or influential person; a magnate." However unlike such terms as monarch, tyrant , dictator, autocracy, theocracy , etc., no body of political science literature explores or employs this as a term of art. A "potentate" is simply one of the many English words for "ruler" or "powerful man." The usage by the Shriners can be mentioned on the Shriner's page. I really don't see the need for a dab page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

about that dab for the Shriners annd the racehorse (I had missed the racehorse). User:Clarityfiend can you explain the angel thing? I'm not seeing it. But the racehorse doesn't look all that significant and discussing the Shriner's potentate on the Shriner's page looks sufficient to me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ambrose (2nd on the list) uses the term. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify per Clarityfiend. Since we do have encyclopedic topics called "potentate", we should have a DAB page. Obviously, a wiktionary link would be included if people just want a dicdef. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The racehorse appears on the list of single racetrack; the angel reference is arcane and obscure, but I suppose a Dab is harmless, because Shriner's title.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's not necessary to keep this page's history, given its WP:DICDEF issue, and the creation of a DAB page can happen outside of AfD. Deletion solves the current issue, clarifies that a DICDEF version of the page is not appropriate, and clears the path for future development as something else. Bakazaka (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT, specifically Wiki is not a dictionary FOARP (talk) 08:40, 9 January 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. Sandstein 09:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Girl[edit]

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

WP:NSONGS You know the drill. Unnotable song by Jamie Foxx ft. Drake, Kanye West, and The-Dream. No reliable sources found for it. Please don’t tell me you think peaking at 92 is notability because clearly it’s not. Delete or redirect to Intuition. Trillfendi (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 02:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only passing mentions found in RS. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 07:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage and not notable, although a redirect to Intuition for the single release is acceptable. KokoPhantom (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above.. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:02, 16 January 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 Reliable multicast. Sandstein 09:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual synchrony[edit]

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

Article is mostly original research. The problems raised eleven years ago at the last AFD persist: the term is largely confined to Birman's work and doesn't seem to have entered into the academic mainstream. This page is Birman's personal essay, and it appears that that is all it will ever amount to, and unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't a collection of essays. SITH (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure what the basic issue is here. Your proposal is dominated by personal-attack language, which somewhat obscures the real question. Are you simply saying “Wikipedia shouldn’t have a separate article on this topic”, or that “this content should be merged into some other primary article with broader coverage”?

As to the facts, Google scholar lists 2,740 articles with some mention of the two-word phrase “virtual synchrony” (a few dozen of which are by me or my students). The great majority were written by authors unrelated to me or my research group, and some use the term in their title or abstract.

The model played (and still plays) a legitimate role, yielded a CORBA standard. It was the first (and is still the primary) self-management model for fault tolerance services that employ a dynamically adaptive group structure, where processes join and leave while updates are underway. Recent textbooks continue to discuss it.

Among contemporary, widely used systems, ZooKeeper employs a form of virtual synchrony. That tool is the majority solution for cloud management and it plays a key role in Apache HDFS, Hadoop, Kafka, and other major components of the Apache cloud infrastructure. The French air traffic control system bases its correctness proof on virtual synchrony, and has been in continuous use since 1995. It is “why you are safe” when you use a self-driving car that depends on ZooKeeper, or fly into French-managed airspace. The NYSE depended upon virtual synchrony for a ten year period from 1995 to 2005, enabling it to self heal when disrupted by network component failures.

What I think could be discussed would be a merge of this material into the article on reliable multicast. It would make sense to explore such a merge, and doing so wouldn’t leave a hole in the Wikipedia “knowledge base”, whereas simply deleting the page would create a gap. The question is: who would carry this task out? Clearly, not me.

I would easily be able to suggest domain experts, but I don’t know if any are Wikipedia editors.

Ken Birman (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ken Birman, sorry it's taken me so long to respond, I've had a lot on my plate. While I agree that my nomination may have been worded somewhat tersely (for which I apologise, I tend to truncate what I say to save time), I adamantly disagree that I violated the policy to which you refer (no personal attacks). If I'd have said "your research is all lies" or "you're a liar", that would be a personal attack. My nomination is in no way intended to cast a shadow on your academic record (I'm some random pleb on the Internet and you're a Professor at Cornell, I don't think anyone's disputing that you know more about the topic you're writing about than I do), I am merely pointing out that the vast majority of the sources cited are written by you. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that we don't publish original research. The article was created by a user whose username is also the attribution given to the sources which cover the term the most. That is the policy upon which I was basing my argument. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: and I would be more than happy to help facilitate a merge to the article you've highlighted. SITH (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I might as well ping @Ken Birman: to keep the discussion rolling.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SITH apology accepted. I’m fine with you deleting the page and tackling this merge. Let me know when you’ve made your edit and I’ll take a look. I don’t get notifications instantly on Wikipedia... email me ([email protected]) if a question arises.

You should probably cite the Derecho paper (accepted by ACM Transactions on Computing Systems, should appear soon) at the same time. Idit Keidar has a theoretical analysis of solutions to the reliable multicast problem (aka State machine replication, Paxos) and gives theoretical lower bounds (a way to identify the best possible protocols is to characterize the minimum amount of information or messages tha must be exchanged).

Derecho, which uses virtual synchrony and runs on RDMA (when the hardware isn’t available it just switches to TCP), is the first solution to achieve this lower bound and in that sense, is the ultimate protocol in this space. No future protocol could outperform it other than through clever use of the hardware or some other engineering innovation: it simply isn’t possible to reduce the message costs. As such there are several pages that probably should cite this paper. I was planning to just add it to the long lists of cited works on those once the TOCS citation is in a final state (lacks page numbers and an exact date right this second). Ken Birman (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: I'm fine with implementing the merge and redirect per Ken Birman's directions above (although I can't promise I'll do it immediately), so I move to close as merge. SITH (talk) 17:01, 14 January 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. Fenix down (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Imray[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as not played professional. Only a trial with Hibs and never started for the Wellington Phoenix. Team Wellington doesn't play in a professional league. Not enough for WP:GNG.

Edit as I see this is third nominations, I'm surprised it was kept in the previous ones but note both where no concensus. Really all the articles are the same thing about his trial and he hasn't gone on to do anything else and/or play professional. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 01:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY as I can not find him going onto the field for a pro team. WP:GNG is harder. But if you don't reach football notability, you can't reach general notability for your football. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 12:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I cannot find reliable coverage which I am going to agree with these two, the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I wasn't convinced about the GNG arguments at the last AFD and I'm still not. Giant Snowman 11:50, 14 January 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 Christian Democratic Party of Australia. Sandstein 09:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Youth (Australia)[edit]

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

This may be a hoax, but is certainly not a notable political party. The only independent source appears to make no reference to the organisation. Grahame (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ABC's item does mention his claim to the party's existence, but there is no evidence that they fact-checked this.--Grahame (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Find bruce (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Find bruce (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete organisation is not notable per WP:ORG, not mentioned in any reliable source, the only external link is primarily concerned with opinions about pill testing and mentions the organistion only peripherally. The same editor also created an article on the organisation's "Counsel" Samraat Joshua Grewal, which is also nominated for deletion. Find bruce (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 02:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I can't find anything beyond passing mention of the Christian Democratic Party's youth wing, although it's hard to tell because the name is shared with many other similar organizations. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 07:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christian Democratic Party of Australia. Most of the references are directly from the Christian Youth source, which would fail WP:RS. If there is any relevant information that can be added as a Youth section of Christian Democratic Party article, that should be done. Bkissin (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Youth wing of a minor party founded a few short months ago that has received no attention. Perhaps worthy of a sentence or two in the main CDP article. Frickeg (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and merge if any IRS can be found) to Christian Democratic Party of Australia. Not notable in its own right. Aoziwe (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as consensus currently appears to be that the "organisation" is not notable, can someone please explain to me how & why redirecting this article would benefit wikipedia.

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diána Mészáros[edit]

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

GNG / NMODEL Simply put, IMDb and FMD are not reliable sources for notability. And I’ve found absolutely no reliable sources, or really any sources at all. Trillfendi (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing that rises to the levle of a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concede that by current ENG WP standards this is not a notable subject. (I was the page creator).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:32, 9 January 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. Sandstein 09:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kred Influence Measurement[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable website / service. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:NWEB; significant RS coverage not found. Not independently notable of PeopleBrowsr, where the service is briefly mentioned. Has been edited by a variety of SPAs to add back promotional information, so I'm proposing that the name be salted or ECP protected. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I support the deletion. Tried to find authoritative resources, but couldn't find any. There were some claims on notability (such as an Alexa rank) that were low quality, but I couldn't verify them with current information (likely outdated). Promotional information keeps getting added back. No authoritative sources on the blockchain claims other than some crypto blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btcgeek (talk • contribs) 17:07, 9 January 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Citrivescence (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TasteDive[edit]

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

Web recommendation engine that fails WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. A Google search didn't turn up any acceptable sources. Citrivescence (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found sources under its original name - Book Riot, CNET, Defining Identity and the Changing Scope of Culture in the Digital Age, India Times, The Next Web, and Expert Internet Searching: Fifth edition. SL93 (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of these sources (CNET and The Next Web) are already in the article.SL93 (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am unfamiliar with The Next Web and so did not count that as a reliable source. However, I did not search under the former name and the sources you found do demonstrate notability. I will withdraw the nomination. Citrivescence (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies WP:GNG and Verifiability. (Sources: [32], [33], [34], [35]).--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 02:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 02:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 03:09, 9 January 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.