Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 16 August 18 August >

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. Vanamonde ( talk) 09:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Rolling Home (Book)

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

A larger version of this sub-stub was previously deleted as advertising. An apparent COI based on the page creator's username, and no claim of notability for this yet-to-be-published book. A7 does not apply to books. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 20:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 01:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( talk) 09:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Flexible product development

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

WP:NOTESSAY, and WP:NEO. This term seems to be primarily associated with the book of the same title, used as a reference. I can't find many results for this term outside of references to this book. LynxTufts ( talk) 20:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 01:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There isn't a clear consensus for anything but deletion here, but I would be happy to refund the content to the userspace of anyone who wishes to perform a merger. Vanamonde ( talk) 10:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Holor

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

This mathematical entity has some coverage in some Google books, but that is only in primary sources. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 19:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( talk) 10:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Nomadicare

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

Organization exhaustively sourced to non-RS sources such as virtualfoundation.org, a travel agency website called nomadicexpeditions.com, etc. There are a couple RS sources that don't actually contain any information on the organization, for instance, WHDH [1] is a broken link and PBS [2] simply mentions the group in a "thanks" line on a film credit list. A BEFORE search fails to find anything substantial or usable. Chetsford ( talk) 17:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary ( talk) 18:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary ( talk) 18:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 09:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 18:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Marc west

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

Previously CSD#7 as Marc West. Still no indication of notability. Sourced entirely to subject's own webpage and youtube. SummerPhD v2.0 17:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

SEP Backup

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

Non-notable software developed by a German company (with a US subsidiary). I was only able to find 1 German-language review (remaining Google hits are press releases, advertorials and passing mentions). Current sources are not independent. A trivial user poll by Gartner (removed) doesn't help to establish notability. GermanJoe ( talk) 17:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe ( talk) 17:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe ( talk) 17:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe ( talk) 17:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#General Authority Seventies. Spartaz Humbug! 20:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Claudio R. M. Costa

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. The primary sources in the article do not serve to establish notability, and WP:BEFORE searches are only providing name checks, passing mentions and brief quotations from the subject. Not finding any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. See also: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America 1000 20:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep For several years he was head of over 1 million Mormons in Brazil. Also as a member of the Presidency of the Seventy he was among the top 22 leaders of the LDS Church. I am sure we could find some additional articles with a good search of Portugese SSources. However there are multiple mentions in articles in the Salt Lake Tribune.03:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert ( talk • contribs)
  • Comment – @ Johnpacklambert: Could you provide some links to the Salt Lake Tribune articles that you mention? I've only found very brief, passing mentions and name checks that do not serve to establish notability. Also, subjects that the LDS church find to be noteworthy are not necessarily notable as per Wikipedia's standards. Multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject are needed to qualify notability. Mormon subjects and leaders do not get a free pass for an article without said independent coverage, because there is no guideline or policy that allows such presumed notability for Mormon subjects. You state that Portuguese sources are likely to exist, but without providing any examples here, it's essentially a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument that lacks qualification via proof of said sources. North America 1000 03:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I placed a notice about this disucssion on the talk page of the Latter Day Saint movement Wikipedia project page. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: As I mentioned a short while ago in another deletion discussion, the problem is that the leaders of the LDS Church are notable primarily because of their service in the Church. If they did not or had not served in those assignments, they as Church members would be no more notable than I am. And again, I recognize that there needs to be some standard of and accountability to ensure that such subjects meet Wikipedia's notability standards and have sufficient independent sourcing. That said, as I also mentioned elsewhere, I am working towards finding the right place to talk about establishing an exception which would apply to the notability of general authority seventies, but have not been able to get anywhere, and have merely been repeatedly redirected to what was supposed to be a "more relevant" location to have that discussion take place. Additionally, am I the only one who is dumbfounded by the fact that in my decade as an editor here, the deletion discussions for such articles have only become a "thing" here on Wikipedia within the last couple of years or so, especially since the notability and reliable sourcing standards have not, to my knowledge, changed all that much during that time? I would therefore again respectfully request that this deletion discussion (and those relating to the deletion of any other articles about general authority seventies) be put on hold while I try to work through the channels I have available to establish notability. Thanks. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 05:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – I don't view the present status quo regarding notability guidelines as a problem at all. The guidelines were created based upon consensus regarding what is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Also, I don't view Wikipedia as a repository for every person in the world that has received significant coverage only in primary sources. There are other websites and resources available for those that do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Also, I do not want to place this discussion on hold at all. North America 1000 06:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I recognize and support the evolution of policy over the years. But most of the policies under which articles such as this were originally created have not fundamentally changed within the last decade, so if an article was not a problem then, I don't see why that should be the case now. I also did not in any way intend to imply that every person in the world who is given significant coverage only in primary sources should have an article here on Wikipedia, and apologize if anything I have said has been interpreted as such. That said, for a religious denomination that has 16+ million members worldwide, and is recognized as the fourth (or even third)-largest religious denomination in the world, there should be a similar (but certainly not identical) policies establishing notability for full-time leaders of this Church. And again, through no fault of my own, my efforts to try and establish such an exception have me running around in circles. It is certainly up to you whether or not to halt the discussion on this nomination. Either way, I will continue to do what I can to find the right place to have the discussion that many editors have agreed needs to take place to establish notability standards. And again, if the consensus opts for deletion, I will accept that decision (whether or not I personally agree with it). But it seems to me that continuing the deletion discussion for such articles may be somewhat disingenuous if earnest efforts are being made by myself and others to resolve the concerns that led to the deletion nominations to begin with. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 06:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 15:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 05:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Adam Young (Video Designer)

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

The sources I find using a Google search are either brief mentions or primary. Fails WP:GNG. The article itself doesn't even make a claim to the subject's notability. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete as per nom; there is no significant coverage of the subject, just of some of the productions in which he has been involved. The Tony nomination borders on notable, but doesn't quite make it as per WP:ANYBIO. Perhaps it is just too soon, and future Tony nominations or awards might enable him to meet notability guidelines. Jmertel23 ( talk) 16:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Ditto with the above. Nothing seemingly notable beyond the Tony Nomination. It's hard to find things on him as well, but this might partially be due to other people called Adam Young. Was able to find his website though, or at least, I think it's his website. Maybe someone with more time on their hands than me can look into it some more. Vulpicula ( talk) 20:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that this is notable, and while ideally I'd like to have more than three participants, it's already been relisted twice and I don't think things are going to change. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama ( talk) 16:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Hel (band)

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

Non-notable band. The best source I can find is just a passing mention in this book. This band has been around since the 2000s, making the usual "there might be sources in non-digital content" claim slightly implausible. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. The editor whose username is Z0 13:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 12:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The first would suggest that there was a greater level of coverage on presumably a controversial aspect of the band, which would be linked to the second. Hzh ( talk) 13:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
If there truly was coverage, it wouldn't be difficult to locate reliable and independent sources to establish notability, which must not be based on assumptions. The sources you provided do not satisfy the notability criteria for both general or music. Presuming there exists a greater level of coverage is et suppositio nil ponit in esse. The editor whose username is Z0 14:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I've already added the part about the era (yes, archiving of news sources to be made available for search on the internet is a real issue, a problem encountered in many articles), and the issue with WP:INTERVIEW is more nuanced and the concern is more about WP:PROMOTION. Hzh ( talk) 14:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
(comment, not argument) It's not necessarily easy to locate sources in Swedish, because you have to wade through a lot of false positives. "Hel", in addition to being a core figure in Norse mythology (from which the group got the name), also means "whole", "entire", "intact", "complete" etc, and is used in many idioms. It's a very common word no matter what you combine it with, even though the band ( WP:IKNOWIT) was not insignificant in their genre back then.
With that said, no matter the potential difficulty, we need to have sources and verifiability or we can't have an article, of course. / Julle ( talk) 17:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep This band appears to have had a significant enough impact on the early 2000s viking metal scene to meet the notability standard. It's somewhat difficult to track down sources in part because there are at least three European metal bands called Hel. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 15:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 15:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

CJ Santos

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

Non-notable radio host of a non-notable show, fails WP:GNG. All sources I can find are from the stations/unreliable sources. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Not because the person doesn't have much of an online presence doesn't mean that he is not notable. There is enough evidence including images and videos to support the notability of this page. Please do not remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalaboomsky ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Notability is not demonstrated by images or videos. It is demonstrated by reliable source coverage about him. Bearcat ( talk) 18:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 14:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 14:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 14:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Just tell me what needs to be removed or questionable areas on the article that needs removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalaboomsky ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

In this discussion, specifying which Wikipedia notability policy the subject meets would be a helpful first step. Bakazaka ( talk) 21:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The article has advertorial overtones; the referencing is entirely to primary and unreliable sources, not to any evidence of reliable source coverage about him in real media; and Kalaboomsky's use of the plural we, rather than "I", above, is pinging my conflict of interest radar. Bearcat ( talk) 18:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Article is updated and removed areas with "advertorial" overtones. Pardon me for using "we". I always have a personal tendency that if i am not using my name, i refer to my callsign a third person. I guess its not going to work on this community. So sorry. I never mean to confuse you.
  • Delete Search finds lack of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources, so fails WP:GNG. Additionally, article uses misleading citations. For example, the film review cited to support subject's role in movie does not mention the subject at all. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Comment additional citation is added for your reference.
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. So Why 15:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The Jack Logan Show

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

Non-notable show (of a potentially non-notable person.) Aside from interviewing a few notable people, I see no evidence that this show has received any outside coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

If you need images and links, i can upload them now and show you why this page is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalaboomsky ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.facebook.com/search/str/%23GrecoLIVE/keywords_blended_videos
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. So Why 15:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Jennifer A. Goodman

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

Non-notable actress who has credits mostly as an extra/unnamed character, only "notable" role is a lead in a show that has no coverage and was canceled after 1 episode. I can find little in the way of coverage of her under her maiden or current name. Fails NACTOR and GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 15:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 15:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
No it doesn't. Her roles have all been insignificant on the notable shows and her only leading role was in a one-episode and done show that didn't make it past the pilot and has no coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 04:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Bytro Labs

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

An article about a subsidiary of the Stillfront Group, sourced to a routine listing, a primary source and a product announcement. The article has twice been moved from Draft into mainspace by WP:SPA WP:COI editor Max Bytro whose other edits concerned one of the firm's products, deleted at AfD in June. Searches are not finding the coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD ( talk) 11:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 11:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 11:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 11:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Cusrow J Dubash

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG, promotional, and has no independent sources. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 14:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Shanghai Expat

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

Apparently never was notable and is not notable. Not every failed business is notable. Google search finds this article, its own unmaintained web site, and very little else. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 14:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 14:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 15:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Sheikh Iqbal

The result was speedy delete

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

No evidence of biographical notability or entertainment notability. Only source listed is IMDB, which is not reliable. Google search finds this article, Facebook, and other people with similar names. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 14:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

José L. Alonso

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks, quotations and very brief passing mentions. The article is entirely reliant on primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Also, importantly, per WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– Independent coverage in reliable sources that provide significant coverage does not appear to exist for this subject. North America 1000 12:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Won Yong Ko

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks and very brief mentions. The article is almost entirely reliant on primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Furthermore, per: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America 1000 12:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Seventy (LDS Church). Spartaz Humbug! 20:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Arnulfo Valenzuela

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to minor passing mentions, quotations and name checks. The article is entirely reliant on primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. In my WP:BEFORE searches, I did find this source, but it consists mostly of quotations from the subject, provides no biographical information about the subject, and ultimately does not provide enough coverage outside of the quotations to count as significant coverage. Furthermore, per: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America 1000 12:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – There is no guideline or policy that provides presumed notability for Mormon subjects or leaders. Subjects that the LDS church considers to be noteworthy are not automatically notable as per Wikipedia's standards. Multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject are needed to qualify notability and an article. Such subjects do not get a free pass for an article without said independent coverage, and personal opinion that a subject is notable by default per being a leader in the LDS church is not backed by any Wikipedia notability guidelines. North America 1000 09:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Seventy (LDS Church). Given that proposals to exempt LDS leaders from the WP:GNG have consistently failed to achieve consensus support (see examples in 2014, 2016, and 2017), the subject has to be evaluated under WP:GNG. Sources currently in article are not independent under WP:IIS and do not count toward establishing notability. Search does not find WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. At first it looked like there was some coverage in Deseret News, but a closer look showed that it was reprinted from Church News verbatim and therefore not independent. A brief mention in a Salt Lake Tribune article about same-sex marriage in Mexico showed up across several different searches, so I added it to the article, but it's still not in-depth. The subject does not seem to pass WP:GNG. A sensible alternative to deletion is to redirect to Seventy (LDS Church), where the subject can be discussed in a more notable context, if desired. Open to alternatives if in-depth coverage emerges. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Actually a better redirect target would be List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#General Authority Seventies, where information on subject already exists. Bakazaka ( talk) 20:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Geje Eustaquio

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

Subject is a MMA fighter. Fails WP:MMABIO as subject has not fought in tier one promotion. PRehse ( talk) 11:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse ( talk) 11:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:NMMA is a long standing consensus and clear with regard to MMA fighter notability. ONE Championship is not top tier. PRehse ( talk) 13:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The notability criteria for MMA fighters is well established. There's no indication he was a national wushu champion (non-independent source merely says "he was invited to be on the national team"). Even if he was a national champion that's insufficient to meet WP:MANOTE. Papaursa ( talk) 18:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 13:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 13:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Clearly does not meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters. Being on the Philippine national wushu team, even if true, is insufficient to meet the notability criteria for martial artists ( WP:MANOTE). Finally, routine coverage and promotion of his MMA fights fails to show that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa ( talk) 18:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Man I don't get it, why do people here in wikipedia consider ONE Championship a second tier promotion where in fact it's the BIGGEST MMA promotions in ASIA. [1] I think the real debate here is not against Eustaquio but i think it's on the side of ONE Championship. I have read some of the arguments against ONE Promotions, and its only 1 thing and that is they lack on well-known and highly rank fighters. Geje Eustaquio is a well-known fighter because of multiple media publications about him. But not a Top rated Fighter according to many MMA rankings because he fights on an outside western country promotions if he fights on UFC he will be easily on the Top 10 no doubt about it.

But currently there is NO independent MMA Rankings which covers all the MMA fighters around the globe and I would love to hear about it(if there's any), and we all know that there is NO independent World MMA Title to Fight on unlike Boxing were 4 independent organizations offer world championship titles. Any rich businessmen can create there own MMA promotions and get several high tier fighters, Top Rank for example can create a MMA promotions and MMA Title with the right MONEY to lure high ranking MMA fighters from multiple ranking publications to come to them, even Super Star Mayweather can create his own too. So I think that this should not be a standard basis of considering what Top tier MMA Promotions are, I think we should add the most important of all (Cultural and Influential Impact of the Organization for the Sport like "What did the promotion contributed to the MMA?","How did the organization help the fighters?","Did it improve the MMA scene in the region?","Did the MMA Promotion influence the economic, political and cultural identity of society on its region?) and so on. (i hope i'm making sense on this but yah.)

And ONE Championship has already made HISTORY not just here in the South East Asia and ASIA but the whole world, it has a large pool of fan base bigger than other top tier mma promotions, the GLOBAL media outlets are talking about ONE MMA, fight fans around the globe known ONE Championship, MMA is flourishing in South East Asia because of ONE Championship., and maybe they the ONE Championship will revamp the dying Japan MMA scene. ONE MMA has molded the future generations of MMA practitioners in Asia generally speaking, ONE has built the foundation of what might happen next on the promotions of MMA (like: show casing different martial arts in 1 fight card, (Grappling Only Match-up, Kick Boxing Muay Thai and now Boxing). and yet people disregard ONE MMA promotions as if it only exist in an unknown part of the world. They made several events on several countries and distributed it to influenced an estimate 1.7 billion people around the globe. And it's on business after 7 years and many more to come. You can't disregard someones achievement because he just fought on so called 2nd tier organization, even if the fights fans knows who is he, where he fights and who is he fighting. I believe this are the basis of why I firmly nominate ONE Championship to be promoted to Top Tier Organization and even if i fail to convince you my fellow Wikipedians on this one. ONE Championship and the people who supported it, have already made a significant mark on the global sports landscape. This is my argument same with Belingon on the other page. (English is not my first language, my deepest apologies on my mistakes and if you guys need sources, i will provide it later on but for now sorry) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonxtx ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

You posted this same comment at Kevin Belingon's AfD discussion so I'll refer you to my comment there about the history and requirements of MMA organizational and fighter notability on WP. Please note we're not saying that ONE is not notable, just that its fighters have not shown they're generally on the same level as say, the UFC. Papaursa ( talk) 01:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianmazique/2018/08/20/one-championship-and-ufc-represent-global-duopoly-in-martial-arts/#772cff5843d4
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 seems to be that this is notable based on the found sources. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama ( talk) 16:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Sinking (album)

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

Album that never reached the top 100, passes no notability guidelines. Redditaddict 6 9 10:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 13:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 13:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Vote changed as Richard3120 had found additional reviews that appear to show notability (I can't check the sources, but I'm trusting they are legitimate full reviews). Hzh ( talk) 12:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Hzh: yes, they are full reviews, not just two lines as part of a quick round-up along with a dozen other albums. Obviously you'll have to take my word for it, but I've added full details of the references, down to the page number, so that anyone who gets their hands on a copy of these music magazines can check the reviews and the quotes taken from them. The NME review in particular is quite a bit longer than the brief quotes I've extracted from it. Richard3120 ( talk) 14:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Excellent. It's always difficult to find sources that are not readily available online, true for a lot of subjects, therefore credit is due for finding them. Hzh ( talk) 14:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I was surprised that this album didn't chart, given that it contains the group's two biggest hit singles, but the Aloof were a reasonably well known group on the mid-90s dance scene in the UK, and this album was their high point – the two hit singles had a fair bit of airplay on BBC Radio 1's specialist music programmes. I was confident that I would find reviews of this album, given that the group wasn't unknown, and I've added reviews from Melody Maker, NME and Q, plus an interview with them from Muzik magazine. I think this should be enough to pass WP:NALBUM as a stub article, and I would think there is probably more out there in the specialist music magazines of the time such as Mixmag and DJ Mag, which are not available online. In light of the information I have added, I don't know whether Hzh would like to reassess his/her vote. Richard3120 ( talk) 21:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Good work finding the reviews. I would discount the AllMusic one as it is too short (I had already seen it before), as I can't check the others, if they are full reviews, then I'd be happy to change my vote. Hzh ( talk) 22:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The album may not have sold loads of copies at the time but as mentioned the band were part of the UK dance scene and the album was critically acclaimed. Not everyone wants to read about Thriller or Sgt. Pepper! The recent additions have brought the article to a higher standard. -- Geach ( talk) 22:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The album contains a UK top 30 single, was critically-acclaimed, has multiple references, and charted within the UK top 200 albums chart as evidenced here - http://www.zobbel.de/cluk/CLUK_A.HTM . The US Billboard chart extends to a top 200, and albums charting on it, regardless of position, are generally considered notable. The UK is one of the largest music markets in the world, therefore reaching their chart is notable. Nqr9 ( talk) 00:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
While there may be argument for keeping, the chart is not one of them. WP:NALBUMS criteria requires that the chart to be the "country's national music chart", and in UK that is the Official Charts Company which normally lists only the top 100. Argument using Billboard is irrelevant. Hzh ( talk) 10:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America 1000 07:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

January 2017 European cold wave

AfDs for this article:
January 2017 European cold wave (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SYNTHESIS of ordinary weather reports. Winter is cold; who knew? Nice pictures, though. — JFG talk 09:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Full AfD list of non-notable cold waves:

Thanks for participating. — JFG talk 10:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC) — Updated 09:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC). reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 14:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
That's a useful academic analysis of the phenomenon, many thanks for finding it! Care to add some words to the article citing this? — JFG talk 08:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm not a climatologist but I might give it a try. There's already a fair bit about Greece in there. Daß  Wölf 01:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 10:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Yoon Hwan Choi

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks and passing mentions. The article is entirely reliant on primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Furthermore, per: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America 1000 10:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After two full relistings, no consensus for a specific outcome has emerged in this discussion. North America 1000 07:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

List of double albums

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

WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTDIR, there are already examples on double album which should more than suffice for the purposes of encyclopedic content on the subject. Has absolutely no references to reliable sources as is required per {{ dynamic list}} as well as plenty of non-notable entries. I can think of at least one example of a notable double album which presently isn't mentioned in the article. I'll note that Category:Double albums was deleted following a discussion in 2012, so really, this shouldn't remain either. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 07:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 07:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 07:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It's a shame people like to bash Andrew for his "keep everything, ever" reputation, but by presenting some sources he is on point here and makes an appropriate argument towards keeping the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I think articles like this show the problems of using WP:LISTN as a guideline to prove notability... the topic is notable, but with WP:LISTN saying that not every individual entry needs to meet notability, it opens up a host of issues. Despite the lead saying "...in which the initial release of the album includes two (or more) LP records or Compact Discs", there are many albums in the list which are included because CD reissues in the past 20 years have included a "Deluxe Edition" with a bonus disc, although the original release in the 1960s or 70s was only a single album. How about albums which were released as a single CD but a double LP? What about Brothers in Arms, which was usually available simply as a single LP or CD, but a 2-LP vinyl version was also available? What about the Now That's What I Call Music! albums and indeed many, many compilation albums which are often double albums? This is why simply quoting WP:LISTN has its limitations, and there needs to be some criteria to limit the scope of a list like this. Richard3120 ( talk) 20:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Richard3120: I think the obvious starting point is to only allow entries into the list where they appear in a reliable source talking about lists of double albums. The Rolling Stone source I just added, documenting a readers' poll of their ten favourite double albums, would be such an example. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Ritchie333, I totally agree with you, and this is my point about WP:LISTN – I don't disagree at all that double albums as a topic are notable, but as the guideline says "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable", it leads to the situation where any double album has been added to the list, and I believe, like you, that individual entries DO need to have been discussed in reliable sources... I think it's a failing of the WP:LISTN guideline that it allows indiscriminate lists to be created. If we could establish a consensus and some criteria about what should be kept in this article, I would probably vote to keep it – the lead has a vague statement about being released on double LP or CD on its first release, but this clearly hasn't been adhered to as CD reissues with bonus discs have been included. And we should probably limit it to studio or live albums, and discard greatest hits or compilations. Richard3120 ( talk) 10:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I think LISTN can still be fit for purpose. If a list is independently notable, by definition it will have sources that state what the list is made up of. We don't have a reliable source listing every single double album ever, so I think we can chop a lot of the chaff out and still adhere to it. Maybe if it was renamed List of best selling double albums or List of critically acclaimed double albums it would make more sense. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the article needs a good blast of dynamite, but with an appropriate lead explaining the expanding significance of the double album and its importance in rock cultures eg: Blonde on Blonde, The Beatles (album), Electric Ladyland, and using sources such as this, this and this, we could get a featured list out of this. I believe Miss Sarita is kicking around wondering what featured list to write next, well here's something for you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Have you seen my "To do" list, Ritchie333?! Hahaha! A sortable table is definitely crucial to cleaning this list up, which I'm fully capable of chipping away at, little by little. I would just need a little direction (e.g., what columns to put, whether to make multiple tables under different subsections, etc.). Once a consensus is made, let me know! I'm happy to help where I can. — Miss Sarita 16:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • @Ritchie333, I'm not completely adverse to your ideas about changing the article title, purpose, and content by WP:TNT. But in combining those ideas, you are basically suggesting to create a new article, not keeping the existing one. Your keep vote is therefore confusing ... you want to keep a glass of water, except it should be made of porcelain instead of glass, and it should contain tea instead of water. Cup of tea? Ubehage ( talk) 16:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I think Trigger's Broom is a better analogy, but essentially it might be useful in future to look at the article's history and retrieve stuff out of it. If the article is deleted and re-created, that can't happen. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@Ritchie333 Moving it to draft space preserves revision history. Right? Even if not then "might be useful in future" is kinda crystal ball joggling. Ubehage ( talk) 19:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 10:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America 1000 07:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Tommy Evans

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

Fails WP:BIO. He is mentioned in many references but in passing associated with his positions at CNN. There are two in-depth pieces but both are from university websites and one is content provided by him ("CNN London Chief Shares Story"). CNMall41 ( talk) 02:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Mortee - On its face, it would meet notability; however, after conducting WP:BEFORE, it does not. Since we base pages on reliable sources, we need to be able to find them to verify what is in the body. There are a few sources that mention that awards, but they are his profiles or from his college, none of which are considered reliable or independent. You would think that someone winning all these awards would have sources to prove it, but a search for them wound up finding nothing usable. In fact, a search of the Peabody award site itself shows that CNN (not him) was awarded a Peabody. Quote - "For its continued investment in such war coverage, especially as global conflicts simmer, we commend CNN and honor it with a Peabody Award" - -- CNMall41 ( talk) 15:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Sure, that wasn't an individual award, but he was named as part of the team it was awarded to (per your ref). Same for the Emmy here, for example. The Prix Bayeux is more of a stretch. It explicitly went to Nic Robertson, though for a particular story presented by him that Evans produced. [6] So he's produced a lot of award-winning work, which isn't nothing, but without individual wins, perhaps ANYBIO isn't clear-cut. You're right that finding in-depth coverage isn't as easy as one might hope. I'll strike my vote for now and try to revisit this in more depth. ›  Mortee talk 16:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 10:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. So Why 15:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Valdas Dambrauskas

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

Football manager who has never managed a club in a fully-professional league or a senior national team. Prod removed by article's creator without a rationale. Number 5 7 12:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 18:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 18:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 10:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America 1000 05:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Martín Pedreira

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable as either scholor or musician. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:MUSICBIO Ifnord ( talk) 03:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

More information on renowned guitarist, professor and theorist Martín Pedrira: https://www.guitarraclasicadelcamp.com/viewtopic.php?t=9087 https://www.guitarraclasicadelcamp.com/viewtopic.php?t=25469 https://www.guitarraclasicadelcamp.com/viewtopic.php?t=17281-- Ernesto53 ( talk) 20:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 12:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 10:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 09:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Robert Kelleher

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

Failed U.S. Senate Nominee that doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Only independent sources are related to his failed candidate status. Redditaddict 6 9 09:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC) (categories) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict 6 9 09:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict 6 9 09:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • keep He was a notable perennial candidate written up in the NYT and in Politics as well as in every paper in Montana, particularly for his 2008 run. Possibly this could be merged some article on that contest. Mangoe ( talk) 17:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete perennial candidates do not add to notability. Nor does serving in a state constitutional convention. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This individual clearly passes WP:GNG — from the 1980s into the 21st century he had extensive coverage in many state and some national publications. NPOL is a set of guidelines, WP:GNG is policy. In this case, he was notable, not merely a perennial candidate, but as a delegate to Montana's 1972 Constitutional Convention. He also was a truly unique figure who had a career that spanned several decades. He ran under the banner of multiple political psrties, and his unusual support for a "parliamentary style" of government was rather unique for an American politician. His surprising stint as the GOP nominee against Max Baucus in 2008, having previously run both as a Green and as a Democrat clearly tops many other people notorious for unusual stunts (such as, to give only one examble, Lawnchair Larry).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw ( talk • contribs) 12:59, 18 August 2018 (PDT) (UTC)
  • Keep: Keep as per montanabw's statements. Also, there are dozens of news articles available for this individual to support GNG. But first see this link Our Campaigns a web site that shows much of his political work from 1964 through 2008. Note that he died in 2011. Here are just a few examples of coverage for him that spans the last two decades: [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12]. I also have subscriptions to newspapers.com and newspaperarchives.com. They are dozens of articles on him. Here's one clipping I took from 1996: [13] from the Great Falls Tribune on June 2, 1996. There is definitely a case for longevity as a unique figure as stated above and significant news coverage. I can search for more news coverage if needed. dawnleelynn (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • ( edit conflict)Redirect to United States Senate election in Montana, 2008. Looking at the reliable sources available on the internet, besides the numerous obits the individual comes up a lot. That said most are only passing mention of the subject of this article, such as the parliamentary style proposal mentioned above, and this one regarding this election, or this election and do not rise to the status of significant coverage. The New York Times article is an obit, (wrong Robert Kelleher) and is the benchmark for having an article for a deceased American to have an obit in the NYT (and elsewhere)? I am curious as to The New York Times article mentioned above, as my google-fu is failing me at the moment. Is it in context to one of of the elections, and is it significant coverage? The subject of the article in question is quoted here, but it is not significant coverage about them self. Therefore per WP:POLOUTCOMES, I have to say a redirect is in order, as the individual was a major candidate in a federal race, but did not appear to be notable outside of that context. Of course if significant coverage and general notability can be established, the redirect can always be changed back into a stand alone article.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
While local sources this article by the Helena Independent Record, and this article by the Montana Standard clearly are significant coverage, and are sufficient for the subject of the article to pass WP:GNG. Therefore I am changing my opinion to Keep. Thanks to dawnleelynn ( talk · contribs) for finding these.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable per the sources for a Wikipedia article. We have multiple levels of notability on WP which can determine if subject matter should be included. This topic is notable enough.(Talk page stalker on occasion)( Littleolive oil ( talk) 02:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)) reply
  • Keep Significant coverage in Missoulian, Montana Standard and New York Times. Obviously meets WP:GNG: "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". -- RexxS ( talk) 18:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Coverage in published, reliable, neutral sources, locally, statewide, and nationally. Candidate in several federal elections. - Tim1965 ( talk) 18:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He is a notable perennial candidate who has received coverage in national publications. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 16:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted under G11. (non-admin closure) —  Alpha3031 ( t • c) 04:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Twomey Center for Peace Through Justice

Twomey Center for Peace Through Justice (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail WP:GNG, promo. Another small center belonging to Loyola University New Orleans without own notability The Banner  talk 09:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • I cannot check them as I do not have access to Newspapers.com. The other ones you mentioned that are not behind that paywall are either peripheral to the subject (biographies of founder), pubished on sketchy platforms (a farmer's market blog?) or minor passing mentions. As you continually and fundamentally misunderstand the concept of reliable sources, notability, coi and promotion, I am happy to take the Banner's word for it that they are just passing mentions and not good sources. The Banner has an excellent grip on the notability standards we employ here, as well as the standards for sources, so his opinion here carries weight. It appears this discussion is moot as the article has been speedy deleted. 96.127.243.251 ( talk) 05:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Emeritus ⋅ List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Emeritus. Randykitty ( talk) 17:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Daniel L. Johnson

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to a few fleeting passing mentions and name checks. The article is entirely reliant on primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Furthermore, per: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America 1000 09:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Seventy (LDS Church). There is no exception to Wikipedia policy for LDS church leaders, and proposals to exempt LDS leaders from the WP:GNG have consistently failed to achieve consensus support (see examples in 2014, 2016, and 2017). The sources in the article are not independent per WP:IIS and therefore not usable for establishing notability. Johnson's non-LDS career was in business, with General Mills, Inc., Citibank, Continental Grain Company, and Elamex, among others, so he shows up in, for example, older SEC filings [14]. Search of databases also finds some passing mentions in coverage of tragic incident involving a family member, brief quotes in a few Deseret News articles involving church efforts in Mexico and a ceremony honoring LDS volunteer service to the USS Missouri, and a short bio in the Deseret News on the occasion of his "release" [15]. This is all routine or superficial coverage, and does not constitute in-depth coverage of subject in multiple, secondary, independent, reliable sources, so right now it doesn't look like subject passes WP:GNG. Redirecting to Seventy (LDS Church) is a sensible alternative to deletion. Open to reconsideration if in-depth coverage emerges. Bakazaka ( talk) 00:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Emeritus where he is mentioned. Regards So Why 15:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 15:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Allen Buckley

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

Page was previously deleted 10 years ago. Nothing has changed since then–he is still a failed U.S. Senate nominee. Does not pass WP:NPOL nor WP:N. Of the few independent sources on the article, all relate to the U.S. Senate candidacy. Redditaddict 6 9 08:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict 6 9 08:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict 6 9 08:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to United States Senate election in North Dakota, 1994. Randykitty ( talk) 17:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Ben Clayburgh

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

Failed candidate for U.S. Senate and father of a tax commissioner. Passes no notability guidelines–no independent sources outside of the failed campaign. Redditaddict 6 9 07:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict 6 9 07:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict 6 9 07:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If someone wants to create a redirect if one of the films is kept, be my guest. So Why 15:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Mark Penney

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NBIO notability. Found little to no third party references about the person. Neither the English or the French Wikipedia articles listed any references. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment: Article seem to be recreated on August 22, 2015, following the deletion vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Penney on Janunary 14, 2006 -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply

AFD for film maker:

AFD of his films:

-- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Keep I'd like to vote otherwise, since he has produced a body of work that has screened at many international film festivals, but independent media coverage seems to be entirely lacking. Changed opinion as per E.M.Gregory below. With at least one review in a national newspaper (The National Post), I suspect there are additional reviews that can be found. Curiocurio ( talk) 15:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per above. We would expect more reliable media coverage since this was a recreation. GenuineArt ( talk) 15:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Wow, I didn't think we had any more unsourced BLPs after all these years. I realize that this 2005 piece is grandfathered under the old rules, but if people can't be arsed to add a single source in 13 years, I reckon we're well in the realm of non-notability under our GNG. Carrite ( talk) 15:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

*Keep WP:HEY I added a pair of reviews innational papers. Note also that he co-wrote Coldwater (film) (it had not been on his page), and his early film The Right Way (2004 film) was the professional debut of Keir Gilchrist and got full-length reviews in Canada's two leading national daily newspapers. There is enough here to meet WP:CREATIVE. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If someone wants to create an article for the LewisGale Regional Health System (@ Tingrin87), I'll be happy to provide a copy of the article for merging but until a merge target exists, nothing can be merged. So Why 15:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

LewisGale Medical Center

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

No evidence of notability. History only lists a vague founding date, and that 5 people were treated there after the VT shooting. - TG 19:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary ( talk) 02:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary ( talk) 02:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 15:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

R. Bhuvan Chandra

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

Actor who has had one major role in a very minor film - does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Probably conflict of interest issues as well, and it looks like much of the article was copied from his own website (but it is not a straightforward copyvio speedy deletion, I think). bonadea contributions talk 06:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 06:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 06:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment. @ Sharkslayer87, the current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable. Please expand with some reliable sources. Accesscrawl ( talk) 07:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Thank you for working on the article, Sharkslayer87. One of the sources you added was the subject's own website, and that can never count towards showing notability. The other source merely confirms that he was in the movie Kidi; that information was already in the article, and again one major role in a film does not make an actor meet WP:NACTOR. (The source itself is a trivial mention in an article about another topic, namely the movie). -- bonadea contributions talk 07:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Accesscrawl,@ Bonadea I undestand now. As it doesn't meet the notability criteria, I vote for its deletion. Sharkslayer87 ( talk) 14:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America 1000 08:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Lindström (company)

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

The article fails to show notability and contains content that is written like an advertisement. It also only relies on primary sources. Abequinn14 ( talk) 06:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 08:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 08:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Seems like a fairly large family-held company, and I could find the following coverage:
    • Yorkshire Post: Here it has been described as "a large, very successful, family-owned company, which is a leading player in
the European textile rental market". Even if the description comes from what would be a subsidiary, and therefore might fail WP: ORGIND, this characterization needs to be considered.
    • This and this about presence in the UK.
    • This, this, and this about presence in India. These, being mainstream Indian publications, should be seen as evidence that the company meets WP: CORPDEPTH.   Shobhit102 | talk  06:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America 1000 08:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Tito Perdue

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

Non-notable author/white supremacist. Scaleshombre ( talk) 01:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment this article was nominated for deletion ( AfD) not even two months ago and the result was "keep". Not sure how anything would have changed between now and then, but notability is not temporary in any case. Tillerh11 ( talk) 17:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep And WP:TROUT Nom for ignoring that AfD. I came upon this one going though the AUTHORS AfD; The discussion looked like a slam dunk delte. Nevertheless, I did as I usually do with authors and ran him through a proquest news archive search (I find starting with the search more efficient than startin by reading all the comments; which often look different after I've seen what comes up in a search,) and... WOW! His books were extremely widely reviewed. That was when I noticed User:Tillerh11's comment and the recent AfD. As editors weighing in there stated, the reviews are dispositive. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep - such a rapid AfD re-submission somewhat ridiculous. At the risk of nicking the previous arguments, LA Review 1, LA Review 2. A quick hunt will bring up others if you want a second intellectually independent source. In any case I feel a speedy close is justified given the circumstances. Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kaiju Big Battel. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix talk 03:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Call-Me-Kevin

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, I found only one (trivial) mention in a WP:RS, the rest is blogs, flickr and similar (and of course the usual items published by the organization). I suggest a redirect to Kaiju Big Battel. Sjö ( talk) 06:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 15:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Windeagle

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Appears five times according to Marvel Wikia; and is only linked by two articles, both of which are lists. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 06:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Black Panther (comics). Randykitty ( talk) 17:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

King Solomon's Frogs

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 06:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Spider-Girl#Supporting cast. So Why 15:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Nancy Lu

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Character appears 24 times according to Marvel Wikia and the page is linked by six articles, one of which is disambiguation and two of which are lists. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 06:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn; I see now that politicians at this level are generally presumed notable, according to the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians_and_judges. I am therefore withdrawing this nomination. ( non-admin closure) MBlaze Lightning talk 14:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Bhagwan Shankar Rawat

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

Fails WP:GNG. MBlaze Lightning talk 06:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I suppose I could have closed this as Keep, but the fact that the newly added sources didn't get any specific review (and they're behind a paywall, so I couldn't look at them myself), and the minimal discussion in general, makes it hard for me to call this a real consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Mel Thompson

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

Non-notable author, fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Not cited by peers, did not originate a significant new concept, and there's no works, articles, or reliably-sourced reviews based on his books that I can find. The link padding in the article is a YouTube video, his personal website, the website of the Little Baddow History Centre which he personally administers, and some refs that simply list the books he's written. None of his work has been discussed in any reliable secondary sources that I can find. Article may be a mix of WP:PROMOTIONAL and WP:COI but that's just a guess on my part. Amsgearing ( talk) 20:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary ( talk) 21:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary ( talk) 21:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary ( talk) 21:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 12:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 14:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Wildstreak

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

Character does not meet WP:GNG. Appears eight times according to Marvel Wikia and is linked by two articles, both lists. Not notable enough to merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: W. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 06:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 14:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Global Village Space (Pakistan)

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

This online news website fails to meet WP's notability criteria on newspapers and also fails to meet basic GNG. Never produced award winning work and no significant history either. Saqib ( talk) 05:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Well I feel there was an excellent case of Pile-On consensus that there was sufficient non-candidate coverage to satisfy GNG in a myriad of sources. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Christine Hallquist

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

Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN as a political candidate not (yet) elected. St Anselm ( talk) 05:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V ( talk) 18:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ RachelWex:: Christine Hallquist has not been voted into office. The 2018 Vermont gubernatorial election will take place on November 6, 2018. In January 2018, Danica Roem became the first openly transgender person to both be elected and serve in any U.S. state legislature. KalHolmann ( talk) 23:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep When I put this article together I was pretty sure she met WP:GNG. She's not just notable for the election results, they just tipped the scale, she's also been the subject of an award-winning film, and digging her company out of bankruptcy (both of which are in this article). So, I don't think WP:BLP1E applies. I specifically started this article because her name was redirecting to Vermont gubernatorial election, 2018 and I thought there was a basis for a full article. Jessamyn ( talk) 23:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV in these media sources with national or international circulation:
  1. The London Times: " Christine Hallquist becomes first trans person to run for US governor"
  2. The Independent: " Vermont primary: Christine Hallquist becomes first transgender candidate to win governor nomination for major party"
  3. The Sydney Morning Herald: " US primaries: Democrat Christine Hallquist becomes first US transgender nominee for governor"
  4. Berliner Morgenpost: " Transgender-Kandidatin Christine Hallquist tritt bei US-Gouverneurswahlen an"
  5. Der Tagesspiegel: " Christine Hallquist als Kandidatin: Erste trans Frau kandidiert bei Gouverneurswahlen in den USA"
  6. The Globe and Mail: " Transgender candidate Christine Hallquist wins Vermont governor’s primary"
  7. Le Journal de Montreal: " Christine Hallquist pourrait devenir la première femme transgenre à devenir gouverneure"
  8. The Week: " With her win, Vermont's Democratic nominee for governor Christine Hallquist made history"
  9. Mother Jones: " Christine Hallquist Just Became the First Transgender Nominee for Governor From a Major Party"
  10. Rolling Stone: " Christine Hallquist Becomes First Trans Candidate to Win Major Party Nomination for Governor"
  11. New York Magazine's Daily Intelligencer: " Christine Hallquist Could Be First Transgender Governor"
  12. National Review: " Christine Hallquist: ‘Historic’ Transgender Gubernatorial Nominee Should Give Us Pause"
  13. Elle: " How a Group of Muslim Girls Inspired Christine Hallquist to Run for Governor"
  14. The New Yorker: " Christine Hallquist’s Vermont Win and the Emergence of Transgender Politicians"
  15. Vox: " Vermont primary results 2018: Christine Hallquist could become the first transgender governor"
WP:BLP1E no longer applies for this person. She is no longer a low-profile individual. She has given several television and print media interviews. ---  Coffeeand crumbs 00:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Liam McEwan

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

Self promotional article. Previous nomination resulted in a redirect but the target of that redirect was itself redirected. Subject has reconstituted this article and continues to edit under multiple IPs. Still no indication of passing GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 04:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge as per the original nomination. Delete Liam has the potential to pass WP:GNG, but at this stage it looks like WP:TOOSOON. If his career develops as it looks like it has the potential to do then he will most likely deserve his own article. NealeFamily ( talk) 10:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It can't be merged to The Flea 88.2 as that is now redirect to Devonport, and an IP which I strongly suspect of being Liam, says he has no affiliation with Devonport. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 11:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC). reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Made his professional debut today against De Graafschap (non-admin closure) JMHamo ( talk) 18:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Arijanet Muric

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo ( talk) 21:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo ( talk) 21:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —  Alpha3031 ( t • c) 04:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

WZUN (AM)

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

No sources (that are not passing mentions) to prove notability - as such, fails WP:NRADIO. Kirbanzo ( talk) 03:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. If it originates at least some of its programming, or did at some point in the past, it is notable and should be kept. If it has only even been a simulcast, then it is not notable and should be deleted. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep FCC-licensed AM station, easily meets WP:BCASTOUTCOMES, simulcast or not (that only applies to translator stations). Nate • ( chatter) 20:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep: Easily meets NMEDIA (NRADIO, same thing) and BCASTOUTCOMES. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:42 on August 17, 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: I've expanded the article a bit, adding some more sources. (One of them is a 1995 newspaper article from when the station was in bankruptcy and off the air amidst a dispute between the then-owners about who the signal was intended to reach, which is probably more than a "passing mention".) From what I can tell, the station definitely originated its own programming in at least its first thirteen or so years on the air, even if it has in later years largely either simulcast FM stations or carried predominantly network programming. As long as a station has a history of doing its own programming and there are sufficient sources to verify this, there is a presumption of notability for licensed broadcast stations. -- WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment According to WZUN-FM's Facebook (thanks persistent cookies for dragging it onto my feed! 😐) this station is now simulcasting that station (at least going by the mention of the Fulton translator, but it certainly couldn't have ESPND on the AM and WZUN on the FM per translator regulations), so further updates may be needed. Nate • ( chatter) 15:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 14:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Ayaan Zubair Rahmani

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

Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. WP:TOOSOON reddogsix ( talk) 03:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to University of Western Ontario#Media. So Why 14:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

UWO Gazette

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

While it exists, currently sourced by mostly by primary or non-independent sources. Searches turned up not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes wp:gng. Onel5969 TT me 03:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 03:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 03:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 03:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 03:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 03:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 03:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The references are almost certainly out there for a long-established student newspaper at a leading Canadian university. I suggest looking for references within published histories of the university and within published histories of journalism and student activism in Canada. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Redirect to University of Western Ontario, unless substantial substantive coverage can be found. Unlike Eastmain, I do not hold out much hope for "published histories of the university' as Talman is already cited and hardly constitutes substantive coverage. Similarly, articles about "student activism" seldom have substantive coverage of student newspapers. Given the state of coverage, the UWO Gazette is not independently notable under the WP:GNG, and Wikipedia coverage should be limited to a sentence or two in the University of Western Ontario article. -- Bejnar ( talk) 05:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I understand that one thing is not necessarily notable just because WP:OSE, but this is not substantially different from the other articles about Canadian university newspapers. There are independent sources. It could use some editing (I am not disputing that it currently contains some irrelevant fluff), but deleting it entirely is unnecessary and even redirecting it seems a bit extreme. (I feel like I should note that I have nothing to do with the Gazette, aside from nostalgia for the comics and puzzles.) Adam Bishop ( talk) 11:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Adam Bishop: "Other stuff exists" is not really a good argument for keeping an article. See, for example, WP:OTHERCONTENT. Each article should stand or fall on its own merits. It is theoretically possible that no Canadian university newspaper is sufficiently notable. In general college papers aren't. -- Bejnar ( talk) 03:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete by admin Rehman ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Reason: WP:A3. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 04:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Stub article

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

Unencyclopediac mainspace topic/ navel-gazing DMacks ( talk) 03:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 03:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 10:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Affle

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

A remarkable number of references, but every single one of them is a mere announcement or a press release. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

---

- Response: The article was created because Affle is an important entity in the marketing and advertising industry. Platforms like SMS2.0 were important innovations that changed the mobile marketing industry. I also dispute that all references are merely announcement or press releases with trusted 3rd party information platforms like Owler and impartial national news sources (in India) like Business Standard, Economic Times etc. being in the references as well. Government newspieces (Singapore) like OpenGovAsia are also referenced. That being said, I am actively looking to improve the article with 3rd party, notable and relevant references.

It is for these reasons, I respectfully implore that the article for business entity Affle should not be deleted. Cleaning it, and adding more references would make it a valuable knowledge source for anyone looking to follow the development of the mobile marketing industry over the years. Bhatnagar.S ( talk) 06:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

- Response: Various changes were made to reduce redundant references. Requesting you to re-visit the article for this. I also intend to continue improving the article further with more notable references.

- Response: I also respectfully deny that this article is in violation of WP:COIEDIT. All the information in the article is as it is present on the internet, without bias, as with notable references (perhaps notable in a country or in an industry - but notable). I have written the entire article on my own, and I seek a chance to improve its quality.

- Response: I have received absolutely no compensation to write this Article. I write articles about companies operating in the Singapore market. My previous article was about business entity Kestone, which recently got deleted (after staying published for over an year). I have been a wikipedia editor for over an year as well. Initially I was making changes to other articles, fixing their language and grammar. Eventually, I moved on to trying to publish my own article.

My! that certainly looks possible. Unless I'm badly mistaken, User:Madhumita Banerjee (mentioned above) is a sock of User:Bhatnagar.S. Two SPAs, both working on the one article. Narky Blert ( talk) 21:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

- Response: I respectfully deny your claim that User:Madhumita Banerjee is a 'Sock'. We have had no contact either on Wikipedia or outside before this comment was made on this discussion.

- Response: Please allow me to improve the article so it does not comes across promotion. I earnestly believe that business entity Affle should have an article given their contributions to the mobile marketing industry.

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 general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#General Authority Seventies. Randykitty ( talk) 17:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Hugo Montoya

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to passing mentions. The article is supported by primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability. North America 1000 13:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Good faith question from a newer editor: where is the consensus guideline that religious organization members are exempt from WP:GNG (or fall under alternative notability criteria similar to WP:NPOL or WP:PROF)? Bakazaka ( talk) 01:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – Furthermore, a previous discussion on the Notability (people) talk page in 2016, located here, regarding the notion of LDS church and other religious organization leaders being granted presumed notability on Wikipedia was widely opposed, with a consensus to not add a stipulation regarding said presumption of notability to the guideline page. Sorry, but the !vote above is rooted entirely in personal opinion, not Wikipedia guidelines or policies. North America 1000 05:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – There's no guideline page on English Wikipedia stating that any religious subjects are presumed notable. A section of the Common outcomes page, which is not a guideline or policy, but rather, an explanatory supplement, is located at WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, which provides suggestions for some faiths, but not Mormonism. However, the Common outcomes page is not set in stone whatsoever, and simply exists to demonstrate some trends in Articles for deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks for this. The part that seems most important in WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES is that becoming a clergy member does not automatically confer notability, but people who become clergy members often become notable because their post puts them in a position to become notable, and they then do something that is notable outside the religious group. It makes sense that a Catholic bishop who then gets involved in community boards or local governance, for example, is likely to get coverage for it outside the church. But it is also clear that the notability guidelines could put some religious groups at a disadvantage in Wikipedia if their clergy are not put in a position to get coverage outside the church. To me that suggests being especially diligent about including clergy or other religious members who pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines, rather than altering Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Search does not find multiple independent reliable secondary sources to support notability for subject. Subject's position is undoubtedly important within the church context, but that has not translated into significant coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Upon reflection, and in the interest of considering alternatives to deletion wherever possible, changing !vote to redirect this article to Seventy (LDS Church) makes sense. The subject's claim to notability is based on membership in that notable part of the church organization. The subject can't inherit notability from the organization, per WP:INHERITORG, and the subject otherwise fails WP:GNG or other possible notability requirements, but he could certainly be discussed in the Seventy (LDS Church) article if appropriate. Bakazaka ( talk) 21:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo ( talk) 02:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. So Why 14:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Oasix

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

There doesn't appear to be much in the way of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources and those included in the article are questionable at best (and some patently unreliable.) A search brought up little else actually related to this person. I also searched under "အိုအေစစ်" which gave even fewer results. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Mizzima ( 1) source is a strong one: independant, focused and coverage of him. And In press, mentioned his hit songs. Meet GNG and WP:artist, This one ( 2) Yangon Life burmese language source is showing about of his solo "1992" (၁၉၉၂) and his music career. Emily Khine ( talk) 21:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
And yet this is contradicted by the utter lack of coverage to support such a statement. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment it is writing in burmese language, But seen coverage Emily Khine ( talk) 15:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It could be written in Klingon, one source stating he's popular is meaningless when there is no actual in depth coverage to support it. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
cmt I doesn't seen dead link sources????? Emily Khine ( talk) 16:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to A Song of Ice and Fire fandom. Giving the nod to merge instead of delete (the majority opinion), per WP:ATD. Note: don't merge the whole thing, selectively merge just a few key points. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Ice and fire con

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

Not well-referenced, and I couldn't find better sources on google.   I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 17:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.   I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 17:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I've added some additional links per I dream of horses' note - The page now includes links to independent coverage by NowThis News, Heavy, TheMarySue, and FanSided / Winteriscoming.net. The page is comparable to a number of other wiki pages for fan conventions. Eidolonic ( talk) 17:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Fansites like winteriscoming are not considered reliable sources for establishing notability. The Mary Sue also seems to lack notability as a source. It seems there are about three articles in what can be deemed reliable sources - that's insufficient for an annual event going on five years. There is a serious lack of coverage here but as one of many Game of Thrones fan conventions can be mentioned in the Fire & Ice article's section on fandom. —Мандичка YO 😜 19:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America 1000 09:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Bajadera

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

A product which apparently does not satisfy WP:GNG, and no claims of notability are provided. A single non-primary source is used for a long promotional quote. A merge to Kraš would also be a valid option (attempted in the past, but reverted). GregorB ( talk) 08:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep on notability grounds, but clean up from promotional language. It has been consistently included in the lists of most renowned Croatian brands, such as:
    • Books:
    • Marat Terterov; Visjna Bojanic (July 2005). Doing Business with Croatia. GMB Publishing Ltd. p. 129. ISBN  978-1-905050-53-6.
    • Božo Skoko (2004). Hrvatska: identitet, image i promocija. Školska knjiga. p. 202. ISBN  978-953-0-61430-7.
    • Dino Bauk; Valter Cvijić; Ildiko Erdei (2 October 2017). Made in YU 2015 (in Slovenian). Založba ZRC. p. 18. ISBN  978-961-254-876-6.
    • News:
    • Frenki Laušić (22 March 2015). "Kalodont, Digitron, Vegeta, Bajadera... Koje su sve domaće marke preživjele napad sa Zapada?". Jutarnji List.
    • "10 najpoznatijih Kraševih proizvoda". Poslovni dnevnik. 13 October 2014.
    • "Naše nove čokolade napravile su toliki bum da radimo non-stop u četiri smjene". Večernji list. 28 January 2016.
    • "Bajadera i Andrea Bocelli – jedinstven spoj okusa i glazbe". Večernji list.
    • "Priče o uspjehu najmoćnijih hrvatskih brendova". Poslovni dnevnik. 9 June 2018.
    • "Ovo su proizvodi bez kojih Hrvati ne mogu ni danas". Večernji list. 7 September 2015.
    • "Za Bajadere čak uzgajaju i bademe". Večernji list. 27 August 2015.
    • Featured even in a novel: Christian Schünemann; Jelena Volic (15 February 2016). Cornflower Blue: A Case for Milena Lukin. Haus Publishing. p. 165. ISBN  978-1-908323-97-2.
    • Home cookbook recipe based on the original product: Liliana Pavicic; Gordana Pirker-Mosher (2007). Best of Croatian Cooking. Hippocrene Books. p. 229. ISBN  978-0-7818-1203-0.. Heck, homemade bajaderas are a household recipe across the ex-Yu.
While it's not always easy to separate PR from journalism, I think that the coverage in totality demonstrates notability of the product. No such user ( talk) 10:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully additional reviewers will have a look at the additional sources provided
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 23:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo ( talk) 01:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Luis Ruiz Suárez. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty ( talk) 15:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Casa Ricci Social Services

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

Fails WP:GNG. Is in fact a part of Caritas Macau with insufficient notability for a separate article. The Banner  talk 12:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. This recounts the history of Casa Ricci Social Services since the 1950s and its evolution that has been independent of Caritas Macau, which began only in 1971. The references show its own notability: "Today, CRSS currently runs 50 programs distributed in 13 provinces in China with 64 Leprosy centers for a total of 4,000 leprosy affected patients, five (5) HIV homes with a total of 40 children, 300 HIV+ mothers/adult, 200 adults at risk of affecting AIDS, and 1500 students from poor families". It antedated Caritas Macau whose services focus on metropolitan Macau, while CRSS serves all of China and beyond, with help from the Ricci Social Service Foundation. Jzsj ( talk) 18:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
As usual, the case here is sourcing. When you cut out the related sources and obits, more then half of the sources is gone. Then you are left with passing mentions and an address book. WP:RS please. The Banner  talk 09:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Where does Wikipedia say that obits, with considerable information on the subject in independent newspapers, cannot be used to verify what is said on the organization's website?
A careful check of the reference numbers reveals the following sources that are not "produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website" (WP:GNG).:
2 government record of charter giving nature of Ricci foundation
3 government stamp establishing the Jesuit presence in Macau social services in 1569
8 travel guide produced by a source independent of Fr. Lu, giving his history in brief
9 diocesan newspaper reporting on an anniversary of Fr. Lu's work
10 magazine of the Chinese Jesuits, reporting on the international connections of the leprosy work of Casa Ricci Social Service
11 reproduction of Fr. Lu's obit in the Sunday Examiner
12 obit of Fr. Lu in the Macau Daily Times
13 Catholic News Philippines report reflecting on Fr. Lu's work with refugees
14 long report at Fr. Lu's death, in the Asian Catholic News Service, including input from readers
1 and 4 give credible accounts of the work of Casa Ricci on its website, largely substantiated above
5,6,7 give an extensive historical account of Fr. Lu's work on the Caritas website Jzsj ( talk) 11:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although there are two keep votes and no supporting deletion beyond the OP's, I am concerned that too many of the sources cited by the principle Keep advocate are related to the subject. Therefore I am re-opening the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect – for now at least – to Caritas Macau, which according to this source is what this now is ("... the Ricci Centre for Social Services, now the Macau branch of Caritas ..."); we surely do not need two articles on the same institution, particularly if one of them is as poorly sourced as this one. Whether Caritas Macau is notable by our standards remains to be seen; Luis Ruiz Suárez most certainly is – the obituaries, are, not surprisingly, almost entirely about him rather than any organisation he founded, and it may be that the article about him would provide better overall coverage of this topic. I don't read Chinese, but of the two obituaries that I can read, the Macau Daily Times has only the passing mention of this institution already quoted above, while the CathNews Philippines source has only a photo credit; that's far short of the level of in-depth coverage required by WP:NCORP. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Luis Ruiz Suárez.My views entirely align with JLN, except that I am not sure about the notability of Caritas Macau, either whereas LRS is definitely notable. ∯WBG converse 07:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo ( talk) 01:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 07:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

SlifkerGames

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

No indication of notability. The only sources cited are the article subject's official website and Facebook, and I can't find any news articles about the subject whatsoever. Aspening ( talk) 00:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 00:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 00:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 00:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The move proposed by Bennv3771 may boldly proceed, but there is no definite consensus for or against the move. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 09:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Santana Srinivasa Temple

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

Only one source, seems to fail WP:NGEO. Complete orphan as well, although that's not really deletion-requiring. Kirbanzo ( talk) 00:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Coverage can be found: 1, 2, 3, and many more if you search in Tamil sources like 4. But per those sources, it needs to be moved to "Sri Santhana Srinivasa Perumal Temple". As for it being orphaned, Mogappair does mention the Sri Santhana Srinivasa Perumal Temple so it can be linked from there once the article title is fixed. Bennv3771 ( talk) 04:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keeep tons of sources in both English and Tamil and it is a very famous temple Abote2 ( talk) 11:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_August_17&oldid=1142617045"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 16 August 18 August >

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. Vanamonde ( talk) 09:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Rolling Home (Book)

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

A larger version of this sub-stub was previously deleted as advertising. An apparent COI based on the page creator's username, and no claim of notability for this yet-to-be-published book. A7 does not apply to books. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 20:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 01:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( talk) 09:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Flexible product development

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

WP:NOTESSAY, and WP:NEO. This term seems to be primarily associated with the book of the same title, used as a reference. I can't find many results for this term outside of references to this book. LynxTufts ( talk) 20:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 01:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There isn't a clear consensus for anything but deletion here, but I would be happy to refund the content to the userspace of anyone who wishes to perform a merger. Vanamonde ( talk) 10:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Holor

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

This mathematical entity has some coverage in some Google books, but that is only in primary sources. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 19:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( talk) 10:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Nomadicare

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

Organization exhaustively sourced to non-RS sources such as virtualfoundation.org, a travel agency website called nomadicexpeditions.com, etc. There are a couple RS sources that don't actually contain any information on the organization, for instance, WHDH [1] is a broken link and PBS [2] simply mentions the group in a "thanks" line on a film credit list. A BEFORE search fails to find anything substantial or usable. Chetsford ( talk) 17:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary ( talk) 18:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary ( talk) 18:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 09:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 18:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Marc west

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

Previously CSD#7 as Marc West. Still no indication of notability. Sourced entirely to subject's own webpage and youtube. SummerPhD v2.0 17:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

SEP Backup

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

Non-notable software developed by a German company (with a US subsidiary). I was only able to find 1 German-language review (remaining Google hits are press releases, advertorials and passing mentions). Current sources are not independent. A trivial user poll by Gartner (removed) doesn't help to establish notability. GermanJoe ( talk) 17:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe ( talk) 17:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe ( talk) 17:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe ( talk) 17:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#General Authority Seventies. Spartaz Humbug! 20:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Claudio R. M. Costa

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. The primary sources in the article do not serve to establish notability, and WP:BEFORE searches are only providing name checks, passing mentions and brief quotations from the subject. Not finding any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. See also: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America 1000 20:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep For several years he was head of over 1 million Mormons in Brazil. Also as a member of the Presidency of the Seventy he was among the top 22 leaders of the LDS Church. I am sure we could find some additional articles with a good search of Portugese SSources. However there are multiple mentions in articles in the Salt Lake Tribune.03:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert ( talk • contribs)
  • Comment – @ Johnpacklambert: Could you provide some links to the Salt Lake Tribune articles that you mention? I've only found very brief, passing mentions and name checks that do not serve to establish notability. Also, subjects that the LDS church find to be noteworthy are not necessarily notable as per Wikipedia's standards. Multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject are needed to qualify notability. Mormon subjects and leaders do not get a free pass for an article without said independent coverage, because there is no guideline or policy that allows such presumed notability for Mormon subjects. You state that Portuguese sources are likely to exist, but without providing any examples here, it's essentially a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument that lacks qualification via proof of said sources. North America 1000 03:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I placed a notice about this disucssion on the talk page of the Latter Day Saint movement Wikipedia project page. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: As I mentioned a short while ago in another deletion discussion, the problem is that the leaders of the LDS Church are notable primarily because of their service in the Church. If they did not or had not served in those assignments, they as Church members would be no more notable than I am. And again, I recognize that there needs to be some standard of and accountability to ensure that such subjects meet Wikipedia's notability standards and have sufficient independent sourcing. That said, as I also mentioned elsewhere, I am working towards finding the right place to talk about establishing an exception which would apply to the notability of general authority seventies, but have not been able to get anywhere, and have merely been repeatedly redirected to what was supposed to be a "more relevant" location to have that discussion take place. Additionally, am I the only one who is dumbfounded by the fact that in my decade as an editor here, the deletion discussions for such articles have only become a "thing" here on Wikipedia within the last couple of years or so, especially since the notability and reliable sourcing standards have not, to my knowledge, changed all that much during that time? I would therefore again respectfully request that this deletion discussion (and those relating to the deletion of any other articles about general authority seventies) be put on hold while I try to work through the channels I have available to establish notability. Thanks. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 05:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – I don't view the present status quo regarding notability guidelines as a problem at all. The guidelines were created based upon consensus regarding what is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Also, I don't view Wikipedia as a repository for every person in the world that has received significant coverage only in primary sources. There are other websites and resources available for those that do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Also, I do not want to place this discussion on hold at all. North America 1000 06:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I recognize and support the evolution of policy over the years. But most of the policies under which articles such as this were originally created have not fundamentally changed within the last decade, so if an article was not a problem then, I don't see why that should be the case now. I also did not in any way intend to imply that every person in the world who is given significant coverage only in primary sources should have an article here on Wikipedia, and apologize if anything I have said has been interpreted as such. That said, for a religious denomination that has 16+ million members worldwide, and is recognized as the fourth (or even third)-largest religious denomination in the world, there should be a similar (but certainly not identical) policies establishing notability for full-time leaders of this Church. And again, through no fault of my own, my efforts to try and establish such an exception have me running around in circles. It is certainly up to you whether or not to halt the discussion on this nomination. Either way, I will continue to do what I can to find the right place to have the discussion that many editors have agreed needs to take place to establish notability standards. And again, if the consensus opts for deletion, I will accept that decision (whether or not I personally agree with it). But it seems to me that continuing the deletion discussion for such articles may be somewhat disingenuous if earnest efforts are being made by myself and others to resolve the concerns that led to the deletion nominations to begin with. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 06:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 15:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 05:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Adam Young (Video Designer)

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

The sources I find using a Google search are either brief mentions or primary. Fails WP:GNG. The article itself doesn't even make a claim to the subject's notability. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete as per nom; there is no significant coverage of the subject, just of some of the productions in which he has been involved. The Tony nomination borders on notable, but doesn't quite make it as per WP:ANYBIO. Perhaps it is just too soon, and future Tony nominations or awards might enable him to meet notability guidelines. Jmertel23 ( talk) 16:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Ditto with the above. Nothing seemingly notable beyond the Tony Nomination. It's hard to find things on him as well, but this might partially be due to other people called Adam Young. Was able to find his website though, or at least, I think it's his website. Maybe someone with more time on their hands than me can look into it some more. Vulpicula ( talk) 20:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that this is notable, and while ideally I'd like to have more than three participants, it's already been relisted twice and I don't think things are going to change. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama ( talk) 16:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Hel (band)

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

Non-notable band. The best source I can find is just a passing mention in this book. This band has been around since the 2000s, making the usual "there might be sources in non-digital content" claim slightly implausible. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. The editor whose username is Z0 13:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 12:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The first would suggest that there was a greater level of coverage on presumably a controversial aspect of the band, which would be linked to the second. Hzh ( talk) 13:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
If there truly was coverage, it wouldn't be difficult to locate reliable and independent sources to establish notability, which must not be based on assumptions. The sources you provided do not satisfy the notability criteria for both general or music. Presuming there exists a greater level of coverage is et suppositio nil ponit in esse. The editor whose username is Z0 14:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I've already added the part about the era (yes, archiving of news sources to be made available for search on the internet is a real issue, a problem encountered in many articles), and the issue with WP:INTERVIEW is more nuanced and the concern is more about WP:PROMOTION. Hzh ( talk) 14:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
(comment, not argument) It's not necessarily easy to locate sources in Swedish, because you have to wade through a lot of false positives. "Hel", in addition to being a core figure in Norse mythology (from which the group got the name), also means "whole", "entire", "intact", "complete" etc, and is used in many idioms. It's a very common word no matter what you combine it with, even though the band ( WP:IKNOWIT) was not insignificant in their genre back then.
With that said, no matter the potential difficulty, we need to have sources and verifiability or we can't have an article, of course. / Julle ( talk) 17:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep This band appears to have had a significant enough impact on the early 2000s viking metal scene to meet the notability standard. It's somewhat difficult to track down sources in part because there are at least three European metal bands called Hel. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 15:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 15:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

CJ Santos

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

Non-notable radio host of a non-notable show, fails WP:GNG. All sources I can find are from the stations/unreliable sources. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Not because the person doesn't have much of an online presence doesn't mean that he is not notable. There is enough evidence including images and videos to support the notability of this page. Please do not remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalaboomsky ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Notability is not demonstrated by images or videos. It is demonstrated by reliable source coverage about him. Bearcat ( talk) 18:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 14:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 14:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 14:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Just tell me what needs to be removed or questionable areas on the article that needs removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalaboomsky ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

In this discussion, specifying which Wikipedia notability policy the subject meets would be a helpful first step. Bakazaka ( talk) 21:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The article has advertorial overtones; the referencing is entirely to primary and unreliable sources, not to any evidence of reliable source coverage about him in real media; and Kalaboomsky's use of the plural we, rather than "I", above, is pinging my conflict of interest radar. Bearcat ( talk) 18:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Article is updated and removed areas with "advertorial" overtones. Pardon me for using "we". I always have a personal tendency that if i am not using my name, i refer to my callsign a third person. I guess its not going to work on this community. So sorry. I never mean to confuse you.
  • Delete Search finds lack of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources, so fails WP:GNG. Additionally, article uses misleading citations. For example, the film review cited to support subject's role in movie does not mention the subject at all. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Comment additional citation is added for your reference.
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. So Why 15:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The Jack Logan Show

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

Non-notable show (of a potentially non-notable person.) Aside from interviewing a few notable people, I see no evidence that this show has received any outside coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

If you need images and links, i can upload them now and show you why this page is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalaboomsky ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.facebook.com/search/str/%23GrecoLIVE/keywords_blended_videos
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. So Why 15:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Jennifer A. Goodman

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

Non-notable actress who has credits mostly as an extra/unnamed character, only "notable" role is a lead in a show that has no coverage and was canceled after 1 episode. I can find little in the way of coverage of her under her maiden or current name. Fails NACTOR and GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 15:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 15:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
No it doesn't. Her roles have all been insignificant on the notable shows and her only leading role was in a one-episode and done show that didn't make it past the pilot and has no coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 04:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Bytro Labs

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

An article about a subsidiary of the Stillfront Group, sourced to a routine listing, a primary source and a product announcement. The article has twice been moved from Draft into mainspace by WP:SPA WP:COI editor Max Bytro whose other edits concerned one of the firm's products, deleted at AfD in June. Searches are not finding the coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD ( talk) 11:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 11:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 11:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 11:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Cusrow J Dubash

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG, promotional, and has no independent sources. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 14:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Shanghai Expat

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

Apparently never was notable and is not notable. Not every failed business is notable. Google search finds this article, its own unmaintained web site, and very little else. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 14:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 14:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 15:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Sheikh Iqbal

The result was speedy delete

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

No evidence of biographical notability or entertainment notability. Only source listed is IMDB, which is not reliable. Google search finds this article, Facebook, and other people with similar names. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 14:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

José L. Alonso

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks, quotations and very brief passing mentions. The article is entirely reliant on primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Also, importantly, per WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– Independent coverage in reliable sources that provide significant coverage does not appear to exist for this subject. North America 1000 12:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Won Yong Ko

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks and very brief mentions. The article is almost entirely reliant on primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Furthermore, per: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America 1000 12:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Seventy (LDS Church). Spartaz Humbug! 20:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Arnulfo Valenzuela

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to minor passing mentions, quotations and name checks. The article is entirely reliant on primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. In my WP:BEFORE searches, I did find this source, but it consists mostly of quotations from the subject, provides no biographical information about the subject, and ultimately does not provide enough coverage outside of the quotations to count as significant coverage. Furthermore, per: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America 1000 12:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – There is no guideline or policy that provides presumed notability for Mormon subjects or leaders. Subjects that the LDS church considers to be noteworthy are not automatically notable as per Wikipedia's standards. Multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject are needed to qualify notability and an article. Such subjects do not get a free pass for an article without said independent coverage, and personal opinion that a subject is notable by default per being a leader in the LDS church is not backed by any Wikipedia notability guidelines. North America 1000 09:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Seventy (LDS Church). Given that proposals to exempt LDS leaders from the WP:GNG have consistently failed to achieve consensus support (see examples in 2014, 2016, and 2017), the subject has to be evaluated under WP:GNG. Sources currently in article are not independent under WP:IIS and do not count toward establishing notability. Search does not find WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. At first it looked like there was some coverage in Deseret News, but a closer look showed that it was reprinted from Church News verbatim and therefore not independent. A brief mention in a Salt Lake Tribune article about same-sex marriage in Mexico showed up across several different searches, so I added it to the article, but it's still not in-depth. The subject does not seem to pass WP:GNG. A sensible alternative to deletion is to redirect to Seventy (LDS Church), where the subject can be discussed in a more notable context, if desired. Open to alternatives if in-depth coverage emerges. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Actually a better redirect target would be List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#General Authority Seventies, where information on subject already exists. Bakazaka ( talk) 20:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Geje Eustaquio

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

Subject is a MMA fighter. Fails WP:MMABIO as subject has not fought in tier one promotion. PRehse ( talk) 11:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse ( talk) 11:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:NMMA is a long standing consensus and clear with regard to MMA fighter notability. ONE Championship is not top tier. PRehse ( talk) 13:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The notability criteria for MMA fighters is well established. There's no indication he was a national wushu champion (non-independent source merely says "he was invited to be on the national team"). Even if he was a national champion that's insufficient to meet WP:MANOTE. Papaursa ( talk) 18:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 13:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 13:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Clearly does not meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters. Being on the Philippine national wushu team, even if true, is insufficient to meet the notability criteria for martial artists ( WP:MANOTE). Finally, routine coverage and promotion of his MMA fights fails to show that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa ( talk) 18:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Man I don't get it, why do people here in wikipedia consider ONE Championship a second tier promotion where in fact it's the BIGGEST MMA promotions in ASIA. [1] I think the real debate here is not against Eustaquio but i think it's on the side of ONE Championship. I have read some of the arguments against ONE Promotions, and its only 1 thing and that is they lack on well-known and highly rank fighters. Geje Eustaquio is a well-known fighter because of multiple media publications about him. But not a Top rated Fighter according to many MMA rankings because he fights on an outside western country promotions if he fights on UFC he will be easily on the Top 10 no doubt about it.

But currently there is NO independent MMA Rankings which covers all the MMA fighters around the globe and I would love to hear about it(if there's any), and we all know that there is NO independent World MMA Title to Fight on unlike Boxing were 4 independent organizations offer world championship titles. Any rich businessmen can create there own MMA promotions and get several high tier fighters, Top Rank for example can create a MMA promotions and MMA Title with the right MONEY to lure high ranking MMA fighters from multiple ranking publications to come to them, even Super Star Mayweather can create his own too. So I think that this should not be a standard basis of considering what Top tier MMA Promotions are, I think we should add the most important of all (Cultural and Influential Impact of the Organization for the Sport like "What did the promotion contributed to the MMA?","How did the organization help the fighters?","Did it improve the MMA scene in the region?","Did the MMA Promotion influence the economic, political and cultural identity of society on its region?) and so on. (i hope i'm making sense on this but yah.)

And ONE Championship has already made HISTORY not just here in the South East Asia and ASIA but the whole world, it has a large pool of fan base bigger than other top tier mma promotions, the GLOBAL media outlets are talking about ONE MMA, fight fans around the globe known ONE Championship, MMA is flourishing in South East Asia because of ONE Championship., and maybe they the ONE Championship will revamp the dying Japan MMA scene. ONE MMA has molded the future generations of MMA practitioners in Asia generally speaking, ONE has built the foundation of what might happen next on the promotions of MMA (like: show casing different martial arts in 1 fight card, (Grappling Only Match-up, Kick Boxing Muay Thai and now Boxing). and yet people disregard ONE MMA promotions as if it only exist in an unknown part of the world. They made several events on several countries and distributed it to influenced an estimate 1.7 billion people around the globe. And it's on business after 7 years and many more to come. You can't disregard someones achievement because he just fought on so called 2nd tier organization, even if the fights fans knows who is he, where he fights and who is he fighting. I believe this are the basis of why I firmly nominate ONE Championship to be promoted to Top Tier Organization and even if i fail to convince you my fellow Wikipedians on this one. ONE Championship and the people who supported it, have already made a significant mark on the global sports landscape. This is my argument same with Belingon on the other page. (English is not my first language, my deepest apologies on my mistakes and if you guys need sources, i will provide it later on but for now sorry) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonxtx ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

You posted this same comment at Kevin Belingon's AfD discussion so I'll refer you to my comment there about the history and requirements of MMA organizational and fighter notability on WP. Please note we're not saying that ONE is not notable, just that its fighters have not shown they're generally on the same level as say, the UFC. Papaursa ( talk) 01:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianmazique/2018/08/20/one-championship-and-ufc-represent-global-duopoly-in-martial-arts/#772cff5843d4
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 seems to be that this is notable based on the found sources. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama ( talk) 16:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Sinking (album)

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

Album that never reached the top 100, passes no notability guidelines. Redditaddict 6 9 10:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 13:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 13:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Vote changed as Richard3120 had found additional reviews that appear to show notability (I can't check the sources, but I'm trusting they are legitimate full reviews). Hzh ( talk) 12:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Hzh: yes, they are full reviews, not just two lines as part of a quick round-up along with a dozen other albums. Obviously you'll have to take my word for it, but I've added full details of the references, down to the page number, so that anyone who gets their hands on a copy of these music magazines can check the reviews and the quotes taken from them. The NME review in particular is quite a bit longer than the brief quotes I've extracted from it. Richard3120 ( talk) 14:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Excellent. It's always difficult to find sources that are not readily available online, true for a lot of subjects, therefore credit is due for finding them. Hzh ( talk) 14:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I was surprised that this album didn't chart, given that it contains the group's two biggest hit singles, but the Aloof were a reasonably well known group on the mid-90s dance scene in the UK, and this album was their high point – the two hit singles had a fair bit of airplay on BBC Radio 1's specialist music programmes. I was confident that I would find reviews of this album, given that the group wasn't unknown, and I've added reviews from Melody Maker, NME and Q, plus an interview with them from Muzik magazine. I think this should be enough to pass WP:NALBUM as a stub article, and I would think there is probably more out there in the specialist music magazines of the time such as Mixmag and DJ Mag, which are not available online. In light of the information I have added, I don't know whether Hzh would like to reassess his/her vote. Richard3120 ( talk) 21:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Good work finding the reviews. I would discount the AllMusic one as it is too short (I had already seen it before), as I can't check the others, if they are full reviews, then I'd be happy to change my vote. Hzh ( talk) 22:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The album may not have sold loads of copies at the time but as mentioned the band were part of the UK dance scene and the album was critically acclaimed. Not everyone wants to read about Thriller or Sgt. Pepper! The recent additions have brought the article to a higher standard. -- Geach ( talk) 22:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The album contains a UK top 30 single, was critically-acclaimed, has multiple references, and charted within the UK top 200 albums chart as evidenced here - http://www.zobbel.de/cluk/CLUK_A.HTM . The US Billboard chart extends to a top 200, and albums charting on it, regardless of position, are generally considered notable. The UK is one of the largest music markets in the world, therefore reaching their chart is notable. Nqr9 ( talk) 00:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
While there may be argument for keeping, the chart is not one of them. WP:NALBUMS criteria requires that the chart to be the "country's national music chart", and in UK that is the Official Charts Company which normally lists only the top 100. Argument using Billboard is irrelevant. Hzh ( talk) 10:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America 1000 07:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

January 2017 European cold wave

AfDs for this article:
January 2017 European cold wave (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SYNTHESIS of ordinary weather reports. Winter is cold; who knew? Nice pictures, though. — JFG talk 09:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Full AfD list of non-notable cold waves:

Thanks for participating. — JFG talk 10:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC) — Updated 09:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC). reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 14:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
That's a useful academic analysis of the phenomenon, many thanks for finding it! Care to add some words to the article citing this? — JFG talk 08:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm not a climatologist but I might give it a try. There's already a fair bit about Greece in there. Daß  Wölf 01:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 10:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Yoon Hwan Choi

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks and passing mentions. The article is entirely reliant on primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Furthermore, per: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America 1000 10:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After two full relistings, no consensus for a specific outcome has emerged in this discussion. North America 1000 07:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

List of double albums

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

WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTDIR, there are already examples on double album which should more than suffice for the purposes of encyclopedic content on the subject. Has absolutely no references to reliable sources as is required per {{ dynamic list}} as well as plenty of non-notable entries. I can think of at least one example of a notable double album which presently isn't mentioned in the article. I'll note that Category:Double albums was deleted following a discussion in 2012, so really, this shouldn't remain either. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 07:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 07:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 07:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It's a shame people like to bash Andrew for his "keep everything, ever" reputation, but by presenting some sources he is on point here and makes an appropriate argument towards keeping the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I think articles like this show the problems of using WP:LISTN as a guideline to prove notability... the topic is notable, but with WP:LISTN saying that not every individual entry needs to meet notability, it opens up a host of issues. Despite the lead saying "...in which the initial release of the album includes two (or more) LP records or Compact Discs", there are many albums in the list which are included because CD reissues in the past 20 years have included a "Deluxe Edition" with a bonus disc, although the original release in the 1960s or 70s was only a single album. How about albums which were released as a single CD but a double LP? What about Brothers in Arms, which was usually available simply as a single LP or CD, but a 2-LP vinyl version was also available? What about the Now That's What I Call Music! albums and indeed many, many compilation albums which are often double albums? This is why simply quoting WP:LISTN has its limitations, and there needs to be some criteria to limit the scope of a list like this. Richard3120 ( talk) 20:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Richard3120: I think the obvious starting point is to only allow entries into the list where they appear in a reliable source talking about lists of double albums. The Rolling Stone source I just added, documenting a readers' poll of their ten favourite double albums, would be such an example. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Ritchie333, I totally agree with you, and this is my point about WP:LISTN – I don't disagree at all that double albums as a topic are notable, but as the guideline says "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable", it leads to the situation where any double album has been added to the list, and I believe, like you, that individual entries DO need to have been discussed in reliable sources... I think it's a failing of the WP:LISTN guideline that it allows indiscriminate lists to be created. If we could establish a consensus and some criteria about what should be kept in this article, I would probably vote to keep it – the lead has a vague statement about being released on double LP or CD on its first release, but this clearly hasn't been adhered to as CD reissues with bonus discs have been included. And we should probably limit it to studio or live albums, and discard greatest hits or compilations. Richard3120 ( talk) 10:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I think LISTN can still be fit for purpose. If a list is independently notable, by definition it will have sources that state what the list is made up of. We don't have a reliable source listing every single double album ever, so I think we can chop a lot of the chaff out and still adhere to it. Maybe if it was renamed List of best selling double albums or List of critically acclaimed double albums it would make more sense. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the article needs a good blast of dynamite, but with an appropriate lead explaining the expanding significance of the double album and its importance in rock cultures eg: Blonde on Blonde, The Beatles (album), Electric Ladyland, and using sources such as this, this and this, we could get a featured list out of this. I believe Miss Sarita is kicking around wondering what featured list to write next, well here's something for you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Have you seen my "To do" list, Ritchie333?! Hahaha! A sortable table is definitely crucial to cleaning this list up, which I'm fully capable of chipping away at, little by little. I would just need a little direction (e.g., what columns to put, whether to make multiple tables under different subsections, etc.). Once a consensus is made, let me know! I'm happy to help where I can. — Miss Sarita 16:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • @Ritchie333, I'm not completely adverse to your ideas about changing the article title, purpose, and content by WP:TNT. But in combining those ideas, you are basically suggesting to create a new article, not keeping the existing one. Your keep vote is therefore confusing ... you want to keep a glass of water, except it should be made of porcelain instead of glass, and it should contain tea instead of water. Cup of tea? Ubehage ( talk) 16:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I think Trigger's Broom is a better analogy, but essentially it might be useful in future to look at the article's history and retrieve stuff out of it. If the article is deleted and re-created, that can't happen. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@Ritchie333 Moving it to draft space preserves revision history. Right? Even if not then "might be useful in future" is kinda crystal ball joggling. Ubehage ( talk) 19:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 10:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America 1000 07:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Tommy Evans

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

Fails WP:BIO. He is mentioned in many references but in passing associated with his positions at CNN. There are two in-depth pieces but both are from university websites and one is content provided by him ("CNN London Chief Shares Story"). CNMall41 ( talk) 02:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Mortee - On its face, it would meet notability; however, after conducting WP:BEFORE, it does not. Since we base pages on reliable sources, we need to be able to find them to verify what is in the body. There are a few sources that mention that awards, but they are his profiles or from his college, none of which are considered reliable or independent. You would think that someone winning all these awards would have sources to prove it, but a search for them wound up finding nothing usable. In fact, a search of the Peabody award site itself shows that CNN (not him) was awarded a Peabody. Quote - "For its continued investment in such war coverage, especially as global conflicts simmer, we commend CNN and honor it with a Peabody Award" - -- CNMall41 ( talk) 15:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Sure, that wasn't an individual award, but he was named as part of the team it was awarded to (per your ref). Same for the Emmy here, for example. The Prix Bayeux is more of a stretch. It explicitly went to Nic Robertson, though for a particular story presented by him that Evans produced. [6] So he's produced a lot of award-winning work, which isn't nothing, but without individual wins, perhaps ANYBIO isn't clear-cut. You're right that finding in-depth coverage isn't as easy as one might hope. I'll strike my vote for now and try to revisit this in more depth. ›  Mortee talk 16:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 10:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. So Why 15:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Valdas Dambrauskas

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

Football manager who has never managed a club in a fully-professional league or a senior national team. Prod removed by article's creator without a rationale. Number 5 7 12:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 18:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 18:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 10:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America 1000 05:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Martín Pedreira

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable as either scholor or musician. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:MUSICBIO Ifnord ( talk) 03:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

More information on renowned guitarist, professor and theorist Martín Pedrira: https://www.guitarraclasicadelcamp.com/viewtopic.php?t=9087 https://www.guitarraclasicadelcamp.com/viewtopic.php?t=25469 https://www.guitarraclasicadelcamp.com/viewtopic.php?t=17281-- Ernesto53 ( talk) 20:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 12:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 10:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 09:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Robert Kelleher

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

Failed U.S. Senate Nominee that doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Only independent sources are related to his failed candidate status. Redditaddict 6 9 09:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC) (categories) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict 6 9 09:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict 6 9 09:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • keep He was a notable perennial candidate written up in the NYT and in Politics as well as in every paper in Montana, particularly for his 2008 run. Possibly this could be merged some article on that contest. Mangoe ( talk) 17:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete perennial candidates do not add to notability. Nor does serving in a state constitutional convention. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This individual clearly passes WP:GNG — from the 1980s into the 21st century he had extensive coverage in many state and some national publications. NPOL is a set of guidelines, WP:GNG is policy. In this case, he was notable, not merely a perennial candidate, but as a delegate to Montana's 1972 Constitutional Convention. He also was a truly unique figure who had a career that spanned several decades. He ran under the banner of multiple political psrties, and his unusual support for a "parliamentary style" of government was rather unique for an American politician. His surprising stint as the GOP nominee against Max Baucus in 2008, having previously run both as a Green and as a Democrat clearly tops many other people notorious for unusual stunts (such as, to give only one examble, Lawnchair Larry).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw ( talk • contribs) 12:59, 18 August 2018 (PDT) (UTC)
  • Keep: Keep as per montanabw's statements. Also, there are dozens of news articles available for this individual to support GNG. But first see this link Our Campaigns a web site that shows much of his political work from 1964 through 2008. Note that he died in 2011. Here are just a few examples of coverage for him that spans the last two decades: [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12]. I also have subscriptions to newspapers.com and newspaperarchives.com. They are dozens of articles on him. Here's one clipping I took from 1996: [13] from the Great Falls Tribune on June 2, 1996. There is definitely a case for longevity as a unique figure as stated above and significant news coverage. I can search for more news coverage if needed. dawnleelynn (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • ( edit conflict)Redirect to United States Senate election in Montana, 2008. Looking at the reliable sources available on the internet, besides the numerous obits the individual comes up a lot. That said most are only passing mention of the subject of this article, such as the parliamentary style proposal mentioned above, and this one regarding this election, or this election and do not rise to the status of significant coverage. The New York Times article is an obit, (wrong Robert Kelleher) and is the benchmark for having an article for a deceased American to have an obit in the NYT (and elsewhere)? I am curious as to The New York Times article mentioned above, as my google-fu is failing me at the moment. Is it in context to one of of the elections, and is it significant coverage? The subject of the article in question is quoted here, but it is not significant coverage about them self. Therefore per WP:POLOUTCOMES, I have to say a redirect is in order, as the individual was a major candidate in a federal race, but did not appear to be notable outside of that context. Of course if significant coverage and general notability can be established, the redirect can always be changed back into a stand alone article.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
While local sources this article by the Helena Independent Record, and this article by the Montana Standard clearly are significant coverage, and are sufficient for the subject of the article to pass WP:GNG. Therefore I am changing my opinion to Keep. Thanks to dawnleelynn ( talk · contribs) for finding these.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable per the sources for a Wikipedia article. We have multiple levels of notability on WP which can determine if subject matter should be included. This topic is notable enough.(Talk page stalker on occasion)( Littleolive oil ( talk) 02:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)) reply
  • Keep Significant coverage in Missoulian, Montana Standard and New York Times. Obviously meets WP:GNG: "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". -- RexxS ( talk) 18:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Coverage in published, reliable, neutral sources, locally, statewide, and nationally. Candidate in several federal elections. - Tim1965 ( talk) 18:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He is a notable perennial candidate who has received coverage in national publications. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 16:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted under G11. (non-admin closure) —  Alpha3031 ( t • c) 04:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Twomey Center for Peace Through Justice

Twomey Center for Peace Through Justice (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail WP:GNG, promo. Another small center belonging to Loyola University New Orleans without own notability The Banner  talk 09:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • I cannot check them as I do not have access to Newspapers.com. The other ones you mentioned that are not behind that paywall are either peripheral to the subject (biographies of founder), pubished on sketchy platforms (a farmer's market blog?) or minor passing mentions. As you continually and fundamentally misunderstand the concept of reliable sources, notability, coi and promotion, I am happy to take the Banner's word for it that they are just passing mentions and not good sources. The Banner has an excellent grip on the notability standards we employ here, as well as the standards for sources, so his opinion here carries weight. It appears this discussion is moot as the article has been speedy deleted. 96.127.243.251 ( talk) 05:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Emeritus ⋅ List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Emeritus. Randykitty ( talk) 17:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Daniel L. Johnson

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to a few fleeting passing mentions and name checks. The article is entirely reliant on primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Furthermore, per: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America 1000 09:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Seventy (LDS Church). There is no exception to Wikipedia policy for LDS church leaders, and proposals to exempt LDS leaders from the WP:GNG have consistently failed to achieve consensus support (see examples in 2014, 2016, and 2017). The sources in the article are not independent per WP:IIS and therefore not usable for establishing notability. Johnson's non-LDS career was in business, with General Mills, Inc., Citibank, Continental Grain Company, and Elamex, among others, so he shows up in, for example, older SEC filings [14]. Search of databases also finds some passing mentions in coverage of tragic incident involving a family member, brief quotes in a few Deseret News articles involving church efforts in Mexico and a ceremony honoring LDS volunteer service to the USS Missouri, and a short bio in the Deseret News on the occasion of his "release" [15]. This is all routine or superficial coverage, and does not constitute in-depth coverage of subject in multiple, secondary, independent, reliable sources, so right now it doesn't look like subject passes WP:GNG. Redirecting to Seventy (LDS Church) is a sensible alternative to deletion. Open to reconsideration if in-depth coverage emerges. Bakazaka ( talk) 00:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Emeritus where he is mentioned. Regards So Why 15:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 15:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Allen Buckley

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

Page was previously deleted 10 years ago. Nothing has changed since then–he is still a failed U.S. Senate nominee. Does not pass WP:NPOL nor WP:N. Of the few independent sources on the article, all relate to the U.S. Senate candidacy. Redditaddict 6 9 08:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict 6 9 08:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict 6 9 08:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to United States Senate election in North Dakota, 1994. Randykitty ( talk) 17:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Ben Clayburgh

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

Failed candidate for U.S. Senate and father of a tax commissioner. Passes no notability guidelines–no independent sources outside of the failed campaign. Redditaddict 6 9 07:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict 6 9 07:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict 6 9 07:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If someone wants to create a redirect if one of the films is kept, be my guest. So Why 15:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Mark Penney

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NBIO notability. Found little to no third party references about the person. Neither the English or the French Wikipedia articles listed any references. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment: Article seem to be recreated on August 22, 2015, following the deletion vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Penney on Janunary 14, 2006 -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply

AFD for film maker:

AFD of his films:

-- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Keep I'd like to vote otherwise, since he has produced a body of work that has screened at many international film festivals, but independent media coverage seems to be entirely lacking. Changed opinion as per E.M.Gregory below. With at least one review in a national newspaper (The National Post), I suspect there are additional reviews that can be found. Curiocurio ( talk) 15:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per above. We would expect more reliable media coverage since this was a recreation. GenuineArt ( talk) 15:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Wow, I didn't think we had any more unsourced BLPs after all these years. I realize that this 2005 piece is grandfathered under the old rules, but if people can't be arsed to add a single source in 13 years, I reckon we're well in the realm of non-notability under our GNG. Carrite ( talk) 15:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

*Keep WP:HEY I added a pair of reviews innational papers. Note also that he co-wrote Coldwater (film) (it had not been on his page), and his early film The Right Way (2004 film) was the professional debut of Keir Gilchrist and got full-length reviews in Canada's two leading national daily newspapers. There is enough here to meet WP:CREATIVE. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If someone wants to create an article for the LewisGale Regional Health System (@ Tingrin87), I'll be happy to provide a copy of the article for merging but until a merge target exists, nothing can be merged. So Why 15:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

LewisGale Medical Center

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

No evidence of notability. History only lists a vague founding date, and that 5 people were treated there after the VT shooting. - TG 19:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary ( talk) 02:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary ( talk) 02:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 15:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

R. Bhuvan Chandra

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

Actor who has had one major role in a very minor film - does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Probably conflict of interest issues as well, and it looks like much of the article was copied from his own website (but it is not a straightforward copyvio speedy deletion, I think). bonadea contributions talk 06:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 06:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 06:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment. @ Sharkslayer87, the current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable. Please expand with some reliable sources. Accesscrawl ( talk) 07:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Thank you for working on the article, Sharkslayer87. One of the sources you added was the subject's own website, and that can never count towards showing notability. The other source merely confirms that he was in the movie Kidi; that information was already in the article, and again one major role in a film does not make an actor meet WP:NACTOR. (The source itself is a trivial mention in an article about another topic, namely the movie). -- bonadea contributions talk 07:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Accesscrawl,@ Bonadea I undestand now. As it doesn't meet the notability criteria, I vote for its deletion. Sharkslayer87 ( talk) 14:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America 1000 08:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Lindström (company)

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

The article fails to show notability and contains content that is written like an advertisement. It also only relies on primary sources. Abequinn14 ( talk) 06:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 08:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 08:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Seems like a fairly large family-held company, and I could find the following coverage:
    • Yorkshire Post: Here it has been described as "a large, very successful, family-owned company, which is a leading player in
the European textile rental market". Even if the description comes from what would be a subsidiary, and therefore might fail WP: ORGIND, this characterization needs to be considered.
    • This and this about presence in the UK.
    • This, this, and this about presence in India. These, being mainstream Indian publications, should be seen as evidence that the company meets WP: CORPDEPTH.   Shobhit102 | talk  06:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America 1000 08:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Tito Perdue

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

Non-notable author/white supremacist. Scaleshombre ( talk) 01:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment this article was nominated for deletion ( AfD) not even two months ago and the result was "keep". Not sure how anything would have changed between now and then, but notability is not temporary in any case. Tillerh11 ( talk) 17:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep And WP:TROUT Nom for ignoring that AfD. I came upon this one going though the AUTHORS AfD; The discussion looked like a slam dunk delte. Nevertheless, I did as I usually do with authors and ran him through a proquest news archive search (I find starting with the search more efficient than startin by reading all the comments; which often look different after I've seen what comes up in a search,) and... WOW! His books were extremely widely reviewed. That was when I noticed User:Tillerh11's comment and the recent AfD. As editors weighing in there stated, the reviews are dispositive. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep - such a rapid AfD re-submission somewhat ridiculous. At the risk of nicking the previous arguments, LA Review 1, LA Review 2. A quick hunt will bring up others if you want a second intellectually independent source. In any case I feel a speedy close is justified given the circumstances. Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kaiju Big Battel. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix talk 03:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Call-Me-Kevin

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, I found only one (trivial) mention in a WP:RS, the rest is blogs, flickr and similar (and of course the usual items published by the organization). I suggest a redirect to Kaiju Big Battel. Sjö ( talk) 06:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 15:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Windeagle

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Appears five times according to Marvel Wikia; and is only linked by two articles, both of which are lists. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 06:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Black Panther (comics). Randykitty ( talk) 17:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

King Solomon's Frogs

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 06:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Spider-Girl#Supporting cast. So Why 15:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Nancy Lu

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Character appears 24 times according to Marvel Wikia and the page is linked by six articles, one of which is disambiguation and two of which are lists. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 06:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn; I see now that politicians at this level are generally presumed notable, according to the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians_and_judges. I am therefore withdrawing this nomination. ( non-admin closure) MBlaze Lightning talk 14:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Bhagwan Shankar Rawat

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

Fails WP:GNG. MBlaze Lightning talk 06:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I suppose I could have closed this as Keep, but the fact that the newly added sources didn't get any specific review (and they're behind a paywall, so I couldn't look at them myself), and the minimal discussion in general, makes it hard for me to call this a real consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Mel Thompson

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

Non-notable author, fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Not cited by peers, did not originate a significant new concept, and there's no works, articles, or reliably-sourced reviews based on his books that I can find. The link padding in the article is a YouTube video, his personal website, the website of the Little Baddow History Centre which he personally administers, and some refs that simply list the books he's written. None of his work has been discussed in any reliable secondary sources that I can find. Article may be a mix of WP:PROMOTIONAL and WP:COI but that's just a guess on my part. Amsgearing ( talk) 20:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary ( talk) 21:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary ( talk) 21:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary ( talk) 21:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 12:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 14:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Wildstreak

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

Character does not meet WP:GNG. Appears eight times according to Marvel Wikia and is linked by two articles, both lists. Not notable enough to merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: W. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 06:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 14:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Global Village Space (Pakistan)

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

This online news website fails to meet WP's notability criteria on newspapers and also fails to meet basic GNG. Never produced award winning work and no significant history either. Saqib ( talk) 05:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Well I feel there was an excellent case of Pile-On consensus that there was sufficient non-candidate coverage to satisfy GNG in a myriad of sources. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Christine Hallquist

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

Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN as a political candidate not (yet) elected. St Anselm ( talk) 05:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V ( talk) 18:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ RachelWex:: Christine Hallquist has not been voted into office. The 2018 Vermont gubernatorial election will take place on November 6, 2018. In January 2018, Danica Roem became the first openly transgender person to both be elected and serve in any U.S. state legislature. KalHolmann ( talk) 23:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep When I put this article together I was pretty sure she met WP:GNG. She's not just notable for the election results, they just tipped the scale, she's also been the subject of an award-winning film, and digging her company out of bankruptcy (both of which are in this article). So, I don't think WP:BLP1E applies. I specifically started this article because her name was redirecting to Vermont gubernatorial election, 2018 and I thought there was a basis for a full article. Jessamyn ( talk) 23:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV in these media sources with national or international circulation:
  1. The London Times: " Christine Hallquist becomes first trans person to run for US governor"
  2. The Independent: " Vermont primary: Christine Hallquist becomes first transgender candidate to win governor nomination for major party"
  3. The Sydney Morning Herald: " US primaries: Democrat Christine Hallquist becomes first US transgender nominee for governor"
  4. Berliner Morgenpost: " Transgender-Kandidatin Christine Hallquist tritt bei US-Gouverneurswahlen an"
  5. Der Tagesspiegel: " Christine Hallquist als Kandidatin: Erste trans Frau kandidiert bei Gouverneurswahlen in den USA"
  6. The Globe and Mail: " Transgender candidate Christine Hallquist wins Vermont governor’s primary"
  7. Le Journal de Montreal: " Christine Hallquist pourrait devenir la première femme transgenre à devenir gouverneure"
  8. The Week: " With her win, Vermont's Democratic nominee for governor Christine Hallquist made history"
  9. Mother Jones: " Christine Hallquist Just Became the First Transgender Nominee for Governor From a Major Party"
  10. Rolling Stone: " Christine Hallquist Becomes First Trans Candidate to Win Major Party Nomination for Governor"
  11. New York Magazine's Daily Intelligencer: " Christine Hallquist Could Be First Transgender Governor"
  12. National Review: " Christine Hallquist: ‘Historic’ Transgender Gubernatorial Nominee Should Give Us Pause"
  13. Elle: " How a Group of Muslim Girls Inspired Christine Hallquist to Run for Governor"
  14. The New Yorker: " Christine Hallquist’s Vermont Win and the Emergence of Transgender Politicians"
  15. Vox: " Vermont primary results 2018: Christine Hallquist could become the first transgender governor"
WP:BLP1E no longer applies for this person. She is no longer a low-profile individual. She has given several television and print media interviews. ---  Coffeeand crumbs 00:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Liam McEwan

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

Self promotional article. Previous nomination resulted in a redirect but the target of that redirect was itself redirected. Subject has reconstituted this article and continues to edit under multiple IPs. Still no indication of passing GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 04:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge as per the original nomination. Delete Liam has the potential to pass WP:GNG, but at this stage it looks like WP:TOOSOON. If his career develops as it looks like it has the potential to do then he will most likely deserve his own article. NealeFamily ( talk) 10:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It can't be merged to The Flea 88.2 as that is now redirect to Devonport, and an IP which I strongly suspect of being Liam, says he has no affiliation with Devonport. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 11:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC). reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Made his professional debut today against De Graafschap (non-admin closure) JMHamo ( talk) 18:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Arijanet Muric

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo ( talk) 21:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo ( talk) 21:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —  Alpha3031 ( t • c) 04:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

WZUN (AM)

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

No sources (that are not passing mentions) to prove notability - as such, fails WP:NRADIO. Kirbanzo ( talk) 03:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. If it originates at least some of its programming, or did at some point in the past, it is notable and should be kept. If it has only even been a simulcast, then it is not notable and should be deleted. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep FCC-licensed AM station, easily meets WP:BCASTOUTCOMES, simulcast or not (that only applies to translator stations). Nate • ( chatter) 20:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep: Easily meets NMEDIA (NRADIO, same thing) and BCASTOUTCOMES. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:42 on August 17, 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: I've expanded the article a bit, adding some more sources. (One of them is a 1995 newspaper article from when the station was in bankruptcy and off the air amidst a dispute between the then-owners about who the signal was intended to reach, which is probably more than a "passing mention".) From what I can tell, the station definitely originated its own programming in at least its first thirteen or so years on the air, even if it has in later years largely either simulcast FM stations or carried predominantly network programming. As long as a station has a history of doing its own programming and there are sufficient sources to verify this, there is a presumption of notability for licensed broadcast stations. -- WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment According to WZUN-FM's Facebook (thanks persistent cookies for dragging it onto my feed! 😐) this station is now simulcasting that station (at least going by the mention of the Fulton translator, but it certainly couldn't have ESPND on the AM and WZUN on the FM per translator regulations), so further updates may be needed. Nate • ( chatter) 15:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 14:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Ayaan Zubair Rahmani

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

Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. WP:TOOSOON reddogsix ( talk) 03:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to University of Western Ontario#Media. So Why 14:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

UWO Gazette

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

While it exists, currently sourced by mostly by primary or non-independent sources. Searches turned up not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes wp:gng. Onel5969 TT me 03:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 03:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 03:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 03:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 03:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 03:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 03:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The references are almost certainly out there for a long-established student newspaper at a leading Canadian university. I suggest looking for references within published histories of the university and within published histories of journalism and student activism in Canada. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Redirect to University of Western Ontario, unless substantial substantive coverage can be found. Unlike Eastmain, I do not hold out much hope for "published histories of the university' as Talman is already cited and hardly constitutes substantive coverage. Similarly, articles about "student activism" seldom have substantive coverage of student newspapers. Given the state of coverage, the UWO Gazette is not independently notable under the WP:GNG, and Wikipedia coverage should be limited to a sentence or two in the University of Western Ontario article. -- Bejnar ( talk) 05:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I understand that one thing is not necessarily notable just because WP:OSE, but this is not substantially different from the other articles about Canadian university newspapers. There are independent sources. It could use some editing (I am not disputing that it currently contains some irrelevant fluff), but deleting it entirely is unnecessary and even redirecting it seems a bit extreme. (I feel like I should note that I have nothing to do with the Gazette, aside from nostalgia for the comics and puzzles.) Adam Bishop ( talk) 11:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Adam Bishop: "Other stuff exists" is not really a good argument for keeping an article. See, for example, WP:OTHERCONTENT. Each article should stand or fall on its own merits. It is theoretically possible that no Canadian university newspaper is sufficiently notable. In general college papers aren't. -- Bejnar ( talk) 03:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete by admin Rehman ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Reason: WP:A3. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 04:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Stub article

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

Unencyclopediac mainspace topic/ navel-gazing DMacks ( talk) 03:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 03:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 10:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Affle

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

A remarkable number of references, but every single one of them is a mere announcement or a press release. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

---

- Response: The article was created because Affle is an important entity in the marketing and advertising industry. Platforms like SMS2.0 were important innovations that changed the mobile marketing industry. I also dispute that all references are merely announcement or press releases with trusted 3rd party information platforms like Owler and impartial national news sources (in India) like Business Standard, Economic Times etc. being in the references as well. Government newspieces (Singapore) like OpenGovAsia are also referenced. That being said, I am actively looking to improve the article with 3rd party, notable and relevant references.

It is for these reasons, I respectfully implore that the article for business entity Affle should not be deleted. Cleaning it, and adding more references would make it a valuable knowledge source for anyone looking to follow the development of the mobile marketing industry over the years. Bhatnagar.S ( talk) 06:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

- Response: Various changes were made to reduce redundant references. Requesting you to re-visit the article for this. I also intend to continue improving the article further with more notable references.

- Response: I also respectfully deny that this article is in violation of WP:COIEDIT. All the information in the article is as it is present on the internet, without bias, as with notable references (perhaps notable in a country or in an industry - but notable). I have written the entire article on my own, and I seek a chance to improve its quality.

- Response: I have received absolutely no compensation to write this Article. I write articles about companies operating in the Singapore market. My previous article was about business entity Kestone, which recently got deleted (after staying published for over an year). I have been a wikipedia editor for over an year as well. Initially I was making changes to other articles, fixing their language and grammar. Eventually, I moved on to trying to publish my own article.

My! that certainly looks possible. Unless I'm badly mistaken, User:Madhumita Banerjee (mentioned above) is a sock of User:Bhatnagar.S. Two SPAs, both working on the one article. Narky Blert ( talk) 21:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

- Response: I respectfully deny your claim that User:Madhumita Banerjee is a 'Sock'. We have had no contact either on Wikipedia or outside before this comment was made on this discussion.

- Response: Please allow me to improve the article so it does not comes across promotion. I earnestly believe that business entity Affle should have an article given their contributions to the mobile marketing industry.

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 general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#General Authority Seventies. Randykitty ( talk) 17:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Hugo Montoya

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to passing mentions. The article is supported by primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability. North America 1000 13:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Good faith question from a newer editor: where is the consensus guideline that religious organization members are exempt from WP:GNG (or fall under alternative notability criteria similar to WP:NPOL or WP:PROF)? Bakazaka ( talk) 01:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – Furthermore, a previous discussion on the Notability (people) talk page in 2016, located here, regarding the notion of LDS church and other religious organization leaders being granted presumed notability on Wikipedia was widely opposed, with a consensus to not add a stipulation regarding said presumption of notability to the guideline page. Sorry, but the !vote above is rooted entirely in personal opinion, not Wikipedia guidelines or policies. North America 1000 05:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – There's no guideline page on English Wikipedia stating that any religious subjects are presumed notable. A section of the Common outcomes page, which is not a guideline or policy, but rather, an explanatory supplement, is located at WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, which provides suggestions for some faiths, but not Mormonism. However, the Common outcomes page is not set in stone whatsoever, and simply exists to demonstrate some trends in Articles for deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks for this. The part that seems most important in WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES is that becoming a clergy member does not automatically confer notability, but people who become clergy members often become notable because their post puts them in a position to become notable, and they then do something that is notable outside the religious group. It makes sense that a Catholic bishop who then gets involved in community boards or local governance, for example, is likely to get coverage for it outside the church. But it is also clear that the notability guidelines could put some religious groups at a disadvantage in Wikipedia if their clergy are not put in a position to get coverage outside the church. To me that suggests being especially diligent about including clergy or other religious members who pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines, rather than altering Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Search does not find multiple independent reliable secondary sources to support notability for subject. Subject's position is undoubtedly important within the church context, but that has not translated into significant coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Upon reflection, and in the interest of considering alternatives to deletion wherever possible, changing !vote to redirect this article to Seventy (LDS Church) makes sense. The subject's claim to notability is based on membership in that notable part of the church organization. The subject can't inherit notability from the organization, per WP:INHERITORG, and the subject otherwise fails WP:GNG or other possible notability requirements, but he could certainly be discussed in the Seventy (LDS Church) article if appropriate. Bakazaka ( talk) 21:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo ( talk) 02:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. So Why 14:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Oasix

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

There doesn't appear to be much in the way of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources and those included in the article are questionable at best (and some patently unreliable.) A search brought up little else actually related to this person. I also searched under "အိုအေစစ်" which gave even fewer results. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Mizzima ( 1) source is a strong one: independant, focused and coverage of him. And In press, mentioned his hit songs. Meet GNG and WP:artist, This one ( 2) Yangon Life burmese language source is showing about of his solo "1992" (၁၉၉၂) and his music career. Emily Khine ( talk) 21:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
And yet this is contradicted by the utter lack of coverage to support such a statement. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment it is writing in burmese language, But seen coverage Emily Khine ( talk) 15:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It could be written in Klingon, one source stating he's popular is meaningless when there is no actual in depth coverage to support it. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
cmt I doesn't seen dead link sources????? Emily Khine ( talk) 16:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to A Song of Ice and Fire fandom. Giving the nod to merge instead of delete (the majority opinion), per WP:ATD. Note: don't merge the whole thing, selectively merge just a few key points. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Ice and fire con

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

Not well-referenced, and I couldn't find better sources on google.   I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 17:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.   I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 17:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I've added some additional links per I dream of horses' note - The page now includes links to independent coverage by NowThis News, Heavy, TheMarySue, and FanSided / Winteriscoming.net. The page is comparable to a number of other wiki pages for fan conventions. Eidolonic ( talk) 17:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Fansites like winteriscoming are not considered reliable sources for establishing notability. The Mary Sue also seems to lack notability as a source. It seems there are about three articles in what can be deemed reliable sources - that's insufficient for an annual event going on five years. There is a serious lack of coverage here but as one of many Game of Thrones fan conventions can be mentioned in the Fire & Ice article's section on fandom. —Мандичка YO 😜 19:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America 1000 09:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Bajadera

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

A product which apparently does not satisfy WP:GNG, and no claims of notability are provided. A single non-primary source is used for a long promotional quote. A merge to Kraš would also be a valid option (attempted in the past, but reverted). GregorB ( talk) 08:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep on notability grounds, but clean up from promotional language. It has been consistently included in the lists of most renowned Croatian brands, such as:
    • Books:
    • Marat Terterov; Visjna Bojanic (July 2005). Doing Business with Croatia. GMB Publishing Ltd. p. 129. ISBN  978-1-905050-53-6.
    • Božo Skoko (2004). Hrvatska: identitet, image i promocija. Školska knjiga. p. 202. ISBN  978-953-0-61430-7.
    • Dino Bauk; Valter Cvijić; Ildiko Erdei (2 October 2017). Made in YU 2015 (in Slovenian). Založba ZRC. p. 18. ISBN  978-961-254-876-6.
    • News:
    • Frenki Laušić (22 March 2015). "Kalodont, Digitron, Vegeta, Bajadera... Koje su sve domaće marke preživjele napad sa Zapada?". Jutarnji List.
    • "10 najpoznatijih Kraševih proizvoda". Poslovni dnevnik. 13 October 2014.
    • "Naše nove čokolade napravile su toliki bum da radimo non-stop u četiri smjene". Večernji list. 28 January 2016.
    • "Bajadera i Andrea Bocelli – jedinstven spoj okusa i glazbe". Večernji list.
    • "Priče o uspjehu najmoćnijih hrvatskih brendova". Poslovni dnevnik. 9 June 2018.
    • "Ovo su proizvodi bez kojih Hrvati ne mogu ni danas". Večernji list. 7 September 2015.
    • "Za Bajadere čak uzgajaju i bademe". Večernji list. 27 August 2015.
    • Featured even in a novel: Christian Schünemann; Jelena Volic (15 February 2016). Cornflower Blue: A Case for Milena Lukin. Haus Publishing. p. 165. ISBN  978-1-908323-97-2.
    • Home cookbook recipe based on the original product: Liliana Pavicic; Gordana Pirker-Mosher (2007). Best of Croatian Cooking. Hippocrene Books. p. 229. ISBN  978-0-7818-1203-0.. Heck, homemade bajaderas are a household recipe across the ex-Yu.
While it's not always easy to separate PR from journalism, I think that the coverage in totality demonstrates notability of the product. No such user ( talk) 10:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully additional reviewers will have a look at the additional sources provided
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 23:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo ( talk) 01:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Luis Ruiz Suárez. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty ( talk) 15:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Casa Ricci Social Services

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

Fails WP:GNG. Is in fact a part of Caritas Macau with insufficient notability for a separate article. The Banner  talk 12:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. This recounts the history of Casa Ricci Social Services since the 1950s and its evolution that has been independent of Caritas Macau, which began only in 1971. The references show its own notability: "Today, CRSS currently runs 50 programs distributed in 13 provinces in China with 64 Leprosy centers for a total of 4,000 leprosy affected patients, five (5) HIV homes with a total of 40 children, 300 HIV+ mothers/adult, 200 adults at risk of affecting AIDS, and 1500 students from poor families". It antedated Caritas Macau whose services focus on metropolitan Macau, while CRSS serves all of China and beyond, with help from the Ricci Social Service Foundation. Jzsj ( talk) 18:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
As usual, the case here is sourcing. When you cut out the related sources and obits, more then half of the sources is gone. Then you are left with passing mentions and an address book. WP:RS please. The Banner  talk 09:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Where does Wikipedia say that obits, with considerable information on the subject in independent newspapers, cannot be used to verify what is said on the organization's website?
A careful check of the reference numbers reveals the following sources that are not "produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website" (WP:GNG).:
2 government record of charter giving nature of Ricci foundation
3 government stamp establishing the Jesuit presence in Macau social services in 1569
8 travel guide produced by a source independent of Fr. Lu, giving his history in brief
9 diocesan newspaper reporting on an anniversary of Fr. Lu's work
10 magazine of the Chinese Jesuits, reporting on the international connections of the leprosy work of Casa Ricci Social Service
11 reproduction of Fr. Lu's obit in the Sunday Examiner
12 obit of Fr. Lu in the Macau Daily Times
13 Catholic News Philippines report reflecting on Fr. Lu's work with refugees
14 long report at Fr. Lu's death, in the Asian Catholic News Service, including input from readers
1 and 4 give credible accounts of the work of Casa Ricci on its website, largely substantiated above
5,6,7 give an extensive historical account of Fr. Lu's work on the Caritas website Jzsj ( talk) 11:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although there are two keep votes and no supporting deletion beyond the OP's, I am concerned that too many of the sources cited by the principle Keep advocate are related to the subject. Therefore I am re-opening the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect – for now at least – to Caritas Macau, which according to this source is what this now is ("... the Ricci Centre for Social Services, now the Macau branch of Caritas ..."); we surely do not need two articles on the same institution, particularly if one of them is as poorly sourced as this one. Whether Caritas Macau is notable by our standards remains to be seen; Luis Ruiz Suárez most certainly is – the obituaries, are, not surprisingly, almost entirely about him rather than any organisation he founded, and it may be that the article about him would provide better overall coverage of this topic. I don't read Chinese, but of the two obituaries that I can read, the Macau Daily Times has only the passing mention of this institution already quoted above, while the CathNews Philippines source has only a photo credit; that's far short of the level of in-depth coverage required by WP:NCORP. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Luis Ruiz Suárez.My views entirely align with JLN, except that I am not sure about the notability of Caritas Macau, either whereas LRS is definitely notable. ∯WBG converse 07:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo ( talk) 01:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 07:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

SlifkerGames

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

No indication of notability. The only sources cited are the article subject's official website and Facebook, and I can't find any news articles about the subject whatsoever. Aspening ( talk) 00:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 00:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 00:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 00:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The move proposed by Bennv3771 may boldly proceed, but there is no definite consensus for or against the move. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 09:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Santana Srinivasa Temple

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

Only one source, seems to fail WP:NGEO. Complete orphan as well, although that's not really deletion-requiring. Kirbanzo ( talk) 00:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Coverage can be found: 1, 2, 3, and many more if you search in Tamil sources like 4. But per those sources, it needs to be moved to "Sri Santhana Srinivasa Perumal Temple". As for it being orphaned, Mogappair does mention the Sri Santhana Srinivasa Perumal Temple so it can be linked from there once the article title is fixed. Bennv3771 ( talk) 04:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keeep tons of sources in both English and Tamil and it is a very famous temple Abote2 ( talk) 11:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_August_17&oldid=1142617045"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE