WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION LOG 2018 DECEMBER 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 December	10 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Ekaterina Makarova (tennis player, born 1996)

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

Contested PROD (and an A7 I declined due to lower tier success), Non-notable tennis player who fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search only found significant coverage for the clearly notable tennis player who has the same name as this person. Iffy★ Chat -- 23:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep Meets WP:NTENNIS, she's won three ITF Women's $50,000 tournaments, which are specifically denoted in NTENNIS. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 22:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete I misread the key. My bad! Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 12:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete She did not win three ITF Women's $50,000 tournaments, they were $15,000 tournaments... Keroks ( talk) 03:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. No major tournament results. Adamtt9 ( talk) 11:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - Does not appear to pass any tennis project guidelines. Only minor-minor league results. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 08:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Fails to meet any notability guidelines. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 07:46, 16 December 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 procedural close per WP:EVADE: nominator blocked for sockpuppetry. Anyone who feels strongly enough about it can re-nominate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply

William W. Johnstone

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of 73.55.210.84 ( talk · contribs). Their PROD concern (before it was contested) was as follows: Subject is a non-notable deceased individual. Page appears to be Wikipedia:Fancruft with no sourcing to notability. Page has remained disputed since 2013. Was contested here by Biwom with the following rationale: unPRODing "the USA Today and New York Times bestselling author of over 300 books" with "245,357 library holdings".

Please note this is a procedural nom only; I have no opinion one way or the other. cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note complete lack of sourcing for article - only sources are author's website, author's niece's / ghostwriter's website after his death, and a pay-to-enter "who's who" website entry for the author's niece. Author is simply not notable enough to have been covered by ANY reliable source, as shown by PROD-remover's inability to source their claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.55.210.84 ( talk) 20:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. A book published by his nephew (under his name) garnered some attention from (presumably) reliable sources here and here, but nothing that would justify keeping the page. Etzedek24 ^{(
I'll talk at ya) (
Check my track record)} 23:45, 9 December 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. Sandstein 19:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Seoul Global Center

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

Promotional article of a center in Seoul that offers Korean language and driver license classes to foreigners. Does not meet the standards of WP:ORG, and does not satisfy WP:GNG 1l2l3k ( talk) 16:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. There is no inherent notability for this kind of things, and a brief news article doesn't make it pass the GNG. It seems the author put this up as a public service, which is nice, but that's not what we're here for. Drmies ( talk) 16:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete It’s CLEARLY an advertisement. Trillfendi ( talk) 21:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Clearly non-notable. Kpg jhp jm 01:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - clearly does not meet WP:GNG, as already pointed out, simply an advertisement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Promotional and nothing that makes it notable. There are dozens of these organizations. Nothing makes this one special. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 08:06, 16 December 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. Sandstein 19:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Jim Deacove

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

No significant coverage. The claim that he is a pioneer in the field of co-operative gaming is an unreliable source. Fails WP:BIO. SL93 ( talk) 15:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. The references are all either primary source directory entries or unreliable sources, not reliable source coverage in real media, but nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better referencing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 20:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom and Bearcat, subjects fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG Ifnord ( talk) 03:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete No significant contribution to his field or awards. Fails WP:BIO per nom. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 08:14, 16 December 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. Sandstein 19:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Symbols of New England

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

This is a duplication of existing pages, primarily Culture of New England. The sourcing doesn't say that many of these are symbols of New England, simply that they are from New England. An attempt to redirect was reverted. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 ( talk) 17:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 15:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Appropriate content can probably be merged into Culture of New England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:7940:BB2C:89BB:DC18 ( talk) 16:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Too much original research. Creating an entry for "Patron Saint" and entering the patron saints of two regional archdioceses does not make it so (see Patron saints of places). Similarly, the Flag of New England is not described as unofficial. The various list entries appear to be arbitrary. BiologicalMe ( talk) 17:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete: I'm not thinking so much an OR violation as a WP:SYNTH one; there seems to be very little here by way of sources describing these things as broadly perceived regional symbols. Who genuinely thinks that "King Philip's Seat" or St. Joseph are "symbols" of New England? Ravenswing 20:29, 9 December 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. Sandstein 19:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

List of situation comedies without laugh tracks

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

For the same reason that we deleted the category for this, this should be deleted. A very large number of sitcoms don't use laugh tracks and it's hardly defining. Additionally, sitcoms filmed in front of a live studio audience would fall into a gray area. This was previously deleted under a previous name, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television comedies without laugh tracks JDDJS ( talk) 15:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete along the same lines as aforementioned AfD: WP:NOR and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 ( talk) 17:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete and turn into a category. Eman 235/ talk 19:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

@ User:Eman235 It was already a category and deleted for being trivial and not defining. See here. JDDJS ( talk) 22:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 23:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete- extreme cruft, and an indiscriminate collection of trivia. The previous AfD got this one right. Reyk _YO! 12:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - if it wasn't even notable enough to be a category then there's not even a debate to be had here; strongest possible delete Spiderone 19:04, 10 December 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. Sandstein 19:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Jalin Turner

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

Subject is an MMA fighter. Fails WP:NMMA CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 14:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 14:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 14:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete As per nominator. PRehse ( talk) 10:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
delete Non-notable MMA fighter. Has one top tier fight, a loss, and it requires WP:CRYSTALBALL to think he'll get two more. No significant independent coverage, but no objection to the article being recreated if he has three top tier MMA fights. Sandals1 ( talk) 19:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Has only 1 top tier MMA fight, a loss, and so fails WP:NMMA. The article has no references and my own search only found routine sports reporting. That loss is why this case is different from that of Damir Ismagulov, who is also up for an AfD discussion but won his only UFC fight earlier this month. It's impossible to know if Turner will get 2 more top tier fights, so right now it's WP:TOOSOON for his article. Papaursa ( talk) 21:51, 13 December 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. –  Joe ( talk) 14:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Christina Kirk

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

May not [meet] WP:NACTOR Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 14:18, 9 December 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) 14:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 14:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 14:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. Kirk has received significant coverage in The New York Times and The New Yorker, as cited in the article, both of which are independent of the subject (e.g., Kirk isn't a writer for either of them) and have been determined reliable by discussion. A WP:BEFORE search shows a few more sources, such as this one, which while not as high quality as the NYT or the New Yorker, are likely reliable enough for the purposes of notability. Should meet WP:GNG.-- SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 19:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

SkyGazer 512, well it doesn't talk about her. The focus of the article seems to be the series rather than the actress. Heck, she only appears once in the article. Also 2 articles doesn't make it "significant coverage" as needed by GNG. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 19:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Significant coverage doesn't mean a set number of sources, GNG just states that it needs to be more than one. I could see what you mean about the article I linked, as you're right that it isn't necessarily the main topic of the article; however, I would say there's enough for the purposes of GNG and believe it barely scrapes though the "significant" criterion. I'm not really sure what you mean by "she only appears once in the article," as it seems to mention several different facts about her several times throughout the article (try searching for Kirk instead of simply Christina Kirk).-- SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 21:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep: she did had some nontrivial roles and there were more than one article on her in the very mainstream newspapers. Good enough for me as far as the notability is concerned. Note also the guideline is not a policy. — Taku ( talk) 10:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. –  Joe ( talk) 14:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Canaan Online

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

Non notable browser game that fails WP:GNG for lack of secondary reliable sources that cover this in detail. This exists https://www.onrpg.com/news/canaan-online-review-too-cute-to-be-true/ but OnRPG is considered an unreliable source per WP:VG/RS. Everything in the article is primary or not in depth. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I see a bunch of press releases and a handful of short articles in the WP:VGSE. This is a delete. -- Izno ( talk) 17:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - The source for the award here is just a press release from the developing company, that doesn't even list who gave this "Best Browser-based MMO of 2008" award, and this award cannot be found any where on the site. Even if it was there it wouldn't pass WP:NVIDEOGAMES or WP:GNG. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 08:50, 16 December 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. Sandstein 11:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Alexandre Vassiliev

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

A non-notable person. From the text of the article it is difficult to assess the degree of its level. No confirmation links.-- RTY9099 ( talk) 04:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 25. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep He meets WP:NACADEMIC, #3 "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association". He is a member of the Russian Academy of Arts [1]. The article could certainly be improved, and the much longer Russian Wikipedia article could be a useful source - it has multiple references. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 13:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete the article says he is an honorary member, that is not a regular member and thus not a sign of notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep Still notable even if he doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. He has had a fashion exhibit in at least two countries, Belarus and Azerbaijan, and probably several more that don't have easily available English sources.

Russian Wikipedia translation says "Alexander Vasiliev was awarded state awards of France - Order of Arts and Literature [36] (2016) and Latvia - Cross of recognition of IV degree [37] (2018), as well as non-state awards - with the medal of S.P. Dyagilev [38] for the promotion of Russian art , medal of V. Nizhinsky, Order “Patron of the Arts”, Gold Medal of the Academy of Arts of Russia. Twice is the winner of the award "TOBAV" [39] in Turkey. He was presented in the nomination “Fashion Legend” at the World Fashion Awards in 2010. In 2011, residents of the Samara Region awarded Vasilyev the regional award “People’s Recognition” [40]. In the same year, Vasiliev became an honorary member of the Russian Academy of Arts."

Source for the French award is RIA Novosti, a Russian state-operated news agency. Source for the Latvian award has no Wikipedia article but it seems to be an official Latvian government news source. I'm too lazy to look through the other sources right now, but it's safe to assume that most of the Russian article is legit. Morgan Ginsberg ( talk) 07:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 08:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

DeleteThe significance of the person is not shown and is in doubt.-- Эрик Низигийимана ( talk) 10:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete ,The text does not show notability, Not reliable sources Alex-h ( talk) 09:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply

@ RTY9099, Johnpacklambert, Эрик Низигийимана, and Alex-h: Interviews [2] [3] in Argumenty i Fakty published before 7 March 2014 when the Government of Moscow bought it in case someone wants to disqualify them because "Russian Government". Interview [4] in Trud. Coverage [5] in Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti translated title "Fashion historian Alexander Vasilyev will come to St. Petersburg" and [6] which is about "The exhibition 'The Fashion of Russian Modern' from the collection of Alexander Vasiliev opened in the Picture Hall of the Vitebsk Station." Coverage [7] [8] in Nezavisimaya Gazeta which is about fashion exhibits he helped put together. Morgan Ginsberg ( talk) 03:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Interviews do not add towards notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep "Text not show notability" what does that even mean?. From a search i can see a lot of WP:SIGCOV and he was awarded with state awards of France - Order of Arts and Literature. He has been featured on NYpost in 2007, CNNTURK and some many other media houses that are reliable. Kindly make a thorough search before anymore comment. Maybe articles needs to be written properly but definitely not delete. PlotHelpful ( talk) 11:04, 9 December 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. Sandstein 11:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Janusz Cedro

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

Fails WP:V and WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any sources to verify any of this information. All the search results I could find are about another Janusz Cedro who is a museum curator. I checked the Polish version to see if there are some sources there we could use, but it is also completely unsourced. Brad v 17:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Tried to prod it in December 2016, but the filing editor removed it with a promise to add references, that never happened. Failed WP:BIO and WP:GNG. scope_creep ( talk) 19:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment There appear to be a number of sources in Polish that I can see in a search - [9] [10] [11], so it's not quite true that there no sources. Hzh ( talk) 01:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett ( talk) 07:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep I've added some of the references found, so it should satisfy WP:GNG. Considering that he was most active pre-internet age, and the sources in Polish may not have been archived for easy access on the internet, that there is still coverage of the person suggests that he is notable. Hzh ( talk) 10:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Of the four Polish-language sources added to the article, [12] is an interview, [13] is a corporate bio, possibly self-published, [14] only mentions the subject in passing, and [15] is an announcement from a municipal website. Where is the significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy GNG? Brad v🍁 16:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - I really tried to scrape for a solid source to provide this article, as it is decently written and some good work has gone into all the media attached to the page. However, with all that said I just could not find any significant source that would satisfy WP:GNG on this article. Maybe someone better qualified to look over Polish sources could rescue the article, but until then I have to agree with Bradv's nom. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 09:19, 16 December 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) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 10:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Lexoo

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Has raised $4M in funding, which is low. Created by Special:Contributions/JDob4 with no other contributions outside this topic. Does not meet WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk /
contribs} 04:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. Has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources, e.g. [16], [17], [18], [19]. -- Michig ( talk) 07:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep as has received significant coverage in reliable sources as shown above passes WP:CORPDEPTH thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 17:21, 9 December 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. Michig ( talk) 07:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Jayatu Sanskritam movement

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

Uncited and confusing. I don't know how this article has lasted for over three years. Earwig's Copyvio Detector can't even pull any pages to look for a copyvio from. startTerminal { haha wow talk page | waste_of_space#4023 on discord} 03:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 04:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 04:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 04:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Revolution of 1951#Jayatu Sanskritam: It's at least noteworthy, but it doesn't look like there's enough out there to justify a full article on the movement. No merge ^~ Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~
(Talk)~ 10:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep Did you search Google Books? There are plenty of sources, and many more if you search for "Jayatu Sanskritam". There is plenty of material to improve and adequately reference the article. The redirect to Revolution of 1951 is tempting, but it seems it could easily become WP:UNDUE in that article, and Jayatu Sanskritam extends before and beyond the 1951 revolution. You will also find mentions and sections for Jayatu Sanskritam in several other WP articles. If the article survives AfD, I will move it to Jayatu Sanskritam. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 22:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
- Also, assuming this article is kept, this is a suitable redirection target for Ram Prasad Neupane following the move. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 23:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep Google books has several lists of the movement jayatu Sanskritam. Rather Jayatu Sanskritam movement - Jayatu Sanskritam would fulfill the purpose. Shashank Shree Neupane11:33, 03, December 2018 ( UTC+5:45) —Preceding undated comment added 05:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Followup @ Jacknstock and Shashankshree: I edited the para at Revolution of 1951, and the only significant coverage I could find (Google, GBooks, Scholar) for "Jayatu Sanskrit[am]" was ~1 page in Snellinger (2018). The other (English language) coverage of the movement I could see was very light. Including more detail while avoiding close paraphrasing of Snellinger is a little tricky without accessing (presumed) Nepali and offline sources. Do you have reliable sources accessible other than Snellinger with which you can flesh the article out significantly? Am happy for it to be kept as an article if it is going to be more than a stub, but if it's only going to be a para or two then I see redirect with the possibility of later SPINOUT as better. ^~ Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~
(Talk)~ 13:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Re other mentions, it's unclear whether there's any direct relation between the Belgian organisation and this one. JS may have been a predecessor/inspiration of the Nepal Student Union, but according to the article that organisation started in 1970, some two decades later. And, as suggested, Ram Prasad Neupane should redirect with what's there. ^~ Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~
(Talk)~ 13:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply

The problem with redirecting to Revolution of 1951#Jayatu Sanskritam is that the Jayatu Sanskritam uprising occurred in 1947, four years before the 1951 revolution, so was an entirely separate event. Assuming it's correct that forty-two participants were exiled and others were imprisoned, it seems to be a significant and notable event in the history of Nepal. I will search later to see if I can add anything, but I don't understand local languages so we may need help from others, such as the other editors who have contributed to this and associated articles. It looks interesting, though, so I'd like to know more. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 18:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Someone with access to a major library could help, as many sources in English are not available online (only tantalizing snippets). Jack N. Stock ( talk) 05:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

The 1947 uprising provides background/context in the 1951 revolution article, and a quarter of the Snellinger text also deals with them in that context. Snellinger appears to only use 1 reference for the JS (Ojha 2012). Ultimately there are likely to be sufficient sources somewhere for a fuller article sometime -- the question is should it be later (in which case redirect with Template:R with possibilities should be used and WP:NOPAGE and WP:SPINOUT apply) or immediately. Won't be unhappy if (or likely when) the verdict happens to be a keep, but without demonstrated expansion, am still landing at redirect as better for the while. ^~ Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~
(Talk)~ 01:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep enough sources which shows the article is notable. Azkord ( talk) 04:10, 10 December 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. Sandstein 11:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Kestrels Class Rooms

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

None of the sources mention "Kestrels Class Rooms", all of them are about Beaconhouse and "The Educators". Seems like a promotional edit, since the user who created the page also has a username Kestrel. Daiyusha ( talk) 09:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete: Copied and tweaked from Beaconhouse School System. Creator's edits from Dec 17 to Oct 18 were constructive. It appears that Kestrels is one of four houses used by at least one Beaconhouse school in Pakistan [20] ^~ Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~
(Talk)~ 12:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete for the reasons given above. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 16:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete This is just a copy of the lead paragraph of Beaconhouse School System. This could potentially be speedy deleted as A10. Pichpich ( talk) 20:11, 9 December 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. Michig ( talk) 07:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Close to Us

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

Non-notable film, does not appear to have received notable coverage in English or Russian ( WP:GNG). While it was produced at a notable film studio and involved some significant Soviet actors such as Innokenty Smoktunovsky and Klara Luchko playing main roles, it does not appear to be considered a significant part of their careers and thus does not satisfy the guidelines at WP:FILM-- RTY9099 ( talk) 10:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Weak keep reference 2 in the article has significant coverage of the film Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment The article was nominated for AFD on 8 November but, I think, the discussion was never added to any day's logs. I've added it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 25. -- John of Reading ( talk) 21:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 22:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 22:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 17:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Track warrant

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

Article has been tagged for lack of in-line citations for five years. I made a good-faith effort to source the material, but could only find blogs, rail fan sites, and other sources which didn't meet WP:RS. I assume this is a real thing, and I simply wasn't finding the right sources, so I blew it up to a stub which was little more than a WP:DICTDEF, but sourced to what looked like a WP:RS. It turns out, the publisher, iUniverse, is a vanity press, so even that effort was fruitless.

I'm actually hoping somebody can find some good WP:RS for this, because it's probably a notable topic. But, I was unable to find any, so bringing it here for review. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 02:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. It's a real concept. I've replaced the vanity source with Brian Solomon's Railroad Signaling. A merge to Glossary of North American railway terms may be appropriate, but it's a valid topic either way. Mackensen (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the better source. Could you make it even better by providing a relevant quote? See my earlier citation for an example of how that's done. Not strictly necessary, but it would make the citation more useful since it's not available on-line. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. The majority of the North American railroad network is run under TWC. To Nominate the page for deletion because it lacks in-line citations is incredibly spiteful. If you have a problem with an article, try the talk page first. Sturmovik ( talk) 13:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment This seems like a dictionary definition, and may be more appropriate at Wiktionary per WP:NAD. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 00:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
- It's not a definition, it's a major type of railroad block operation distinct from tokens and absolute block. RoySmith deleted most of the article due to reference problems then, because it was a stub, proposed it for deletion. The article has been restored and the reference problems fixed. This deletion request needs to be closed. Sturmovik ( talk) 12:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I didn't propose it because it was a stub. I proposed it because it didn't have any good sources. I'm still concerned about the quality of the sources. The Solomon book certainly looks like it's probably a WP:RS, but I'm disappointed that User:Mackensen didn't take me up on my request to improve the reference with a quote. I live in New York, so I'm blessed with one of the best public libraries in the world. Unfortunately, they don't have a copy of this book, so I couldn't go look at it myself. The GCOR Rulebook is a WP:PRIMARY source. We need WP:SECONDARY sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply

@ RoySmith: The book's available on Google Books, and I've never been a major fan of quoting in references. Voyageur Press is a reputable publisher; Solomon has written numerous books and has been published in Trains. Mackensen (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Google Books is non-deterministic about which pages it shows. When I tried to look this up a few days ago, it wouldn't show me the page you cited, 135. When I went back to it now, I'm getting page 135. Saying that you're not a fan of quoting just says you're not a fan of providing the best material that we can for our readers. We want our readers to be able to verify everything that's in the encyclopedia. If something is reliably on line, we can do that by providing a link. If something's not on line (or only on line in some screwy way like Google Books which may or may not show a particular page on a given day), providing a quote is a good way to ensure the reader can find the material. That's why under WP:CITE#Additional annotation, it says, A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible. That certainly applies here. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply

- - The article has been expanded greatly since my comment. I don't agree with the deletion of stubs merely because they are stubs, and "probably a notable topic" usually means it will be kept in some form. Should it be moved to Track warrant control to describe the system rather than the method of authorization? Jack N. Stock ( talk) 13:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    - More like restored than expanded, but re-naming the article to Track Warrant Control would be fine. I hadn't even noticed the name might just apply to the form. Currently Track Warrant Control redirects to Track Warrant. Sturmovik ( talk) 14:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
      - I'm going to move it as soon as this is over, assuming nobody else does it first. On the basis of the article being about a railway control system, it is a clear keep. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 18:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep/merge Railways usually have some system of keeping trains apart and we have an extensive article about related methods at token (railway signalling), "... a written authority to enter the single line section, referred to as the ticket." There are therefore sensible alternatives to deletion which we prefer per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. ( talk) 10:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep. Clearly supports an article. We can accept a cite to a book even if the page is not (or always) available on google. And we can cite to a rulebook or similar document for what it itself says (not an interpretation of what it means, but what it says)-- we don't need a secondary source for what it says. And to avoid an argument on that, quotes work best. Kablammo ( talk) 14:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Most of the citations to the GCOR Rulebook are indeed interpretations of what it means. I'm sure the author of this article was a subject matter expert, and probably knows this stuff so well that it's obvious what it all means. But to me, a relative layman, I look at the referenced sentence in the article, and at the cited section in the rulebook, and it's not clear to me how you got from one to the other. It's obvious at this point that this article is going to be kept. And, yes, I know AfD is not cleanup, but this really needs better sourcing. A fundamental requirement of the encyclopedia is that everything should be verifiable. For every fact stated in an article, I should be able to find a WP:RS which confirms that the fact is true. Taking an article which is mostly original research and saying, "Here's the rulebook, it's all there" may meet the letter of law as far as WP:V goes, but it's not doing our best job to write an encyclopedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 11 December 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) Ifnord ( talk) 03:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Schön Properties

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

References not notable enough for the most part of the article Immu 01 00:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 00:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 00:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 00:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 00:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep I created this article, although it was expanded after I started it, and IMHO the references do meet notability, including the the whole Multan Sultans ownership, property seizure, and "one of the largest mixed-use master-planned communities in the UAE" [21]. So said The Great Wiki Lord. ( talk) 02:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 08:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment I believe that Immu 01 is trying to remove references relating to property seizure, he had attempted to protect the page because of this information as noted here. I suspect that there may be a WP:COI. So said The Great Wiki Lord. ( talk) 15:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep for the reasons given by the editor above. The Donkey King ( talk) 13:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep significant coverage including an Arabian Business interview, The National (UAE) on the property seizure, and multiple Pakistani news articles on the Multan Sultans ownership. feminist ( talk) 09:01, 14 December 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. Sandstein 11:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Night Nail

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

Non notable band, fails WP:NMUSIC. Valenciano ( talk) 22:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Cleopatra Records as they appear to be signed with them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 16:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. Barely any coverage found. Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. -- Michig ( talk) 07:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - No significant source could be found to satisfy WP:GNG, and the single included source is an interview from a website whose reliability is questionable at best. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 09:55, 16 December 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. Michig ( talk) 07:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Tha Hla Shwe

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

Strong keep: (nominator) This person had held a highest-level appointed administrative post ( Rector (academia)) at a major academic institution University of Medicine 2, Yangon, and served as President of country-level Red Cross organization ( Myanmar Red Cross Society). The person has received considerable coverage in multiple published reliable news. IMO, there is no notability problem.

However, there is a dispute that the person is notable for a separate article, or whether the name should be a redirect to the national Red Cross society. I've disputed the change (blank-and-redirect) and an attempt was made to reach a consensus by discussing in Talk:Tha Hla Shwe and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Tha Hla Shwe. My point is the article is notable for an article and should not redirect to Myanmar Red Cross Society. But another user favours blank-and-redirect and has no intention of starting an AfD discussion. DR volunteer suggests the best way to resolve this dispute, when the redirect is being used as a back-door deletion, does appear to be a Article for Deletion discussion.

So, I've recovered the article from page history, copyedited and removed unverified information. Now, I am nominating the article for deletion in order to resolve the dispute. Phyo WP (message) 04:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep Subject meets WP:NACADEMIC #3 "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" as a member of the Myanmar Academy of Medical Science, and #6 "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.". He is eligible for an article whether or not he has been president of the national Red Cross, and his notability could not be shown by inclusion in or redirection to the Red Cross article. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 11:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

~~Speedy close~~ (changed to snow keep, for similar reasoning, strike so as not to !vote twice Polyamorph ( talk) 08:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)) On the basis that the nominator is not proposing deletion. This "dispute" would have been far better dealt with had editors actually improved the sources on the page - rather than wasting time and effort in dispute resolution and here. This article is very poorly sourced, these must be improved to maintain wikipedia's quality standards. Polyamorph ( talk) 14:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep as the subject of the article meets WP:NACADEMIC. Ninja✮Strikers ^«
☎» 15:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Question - How does User:Polyamorph propose to resolve this content dispute, if they contend that AFD is not an appropriate venue? Is a Request for Comments, which takes 30 days to run, required, or are they suggesting that the dispute be resolved by edit-warring, or are they suggesting that all disputes in which the choices are to Keep and to Redirect should always be decided in favor of Redirect? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment - This dispute turns on the question of whether AFD is an appropriate means of resolving a blank-and-redirect controversy. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Reply as I was referred to by username. All we are saying, is ... give verifiable information from reliable sources, especially important for BLPs ... a chance. There is no dispute. I have added a template requesting more sources for this BLP, as far as I'm concerned that's the end of the matter. The burden is on those who create BLPs to add sourced information. This matter did not need dispute resolution or AfD and certainly does not warrant an RfC! Polyamorph ( talk) 07:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep (that is, do not redirect) - After reviewing the article and the arguments, I see that the individual satisfies academic notability. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment - I wonder whether there may be an anti-Myanmar prejudice at work here. The country is a pariah for humanitarian reasons, but that should not reflect on one of its doctors, and we haven't even researched (and shouldn't research) his views on political controversies involving his country. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Snow keep as this isn't a deletion discussion, no one has suggested deletion. This article was redirected by multiple users due to poor sourcing. This is not "back-door" deletion as Robert McClenon seems to enjoy describing it, as the page history is preserved and can be restored at any time and expanded by anybody. No one disputes notability, the only request has been to improve sourcing. These requests have been entirely ignored in favour of making bad faith accusations against good faith editors. Robert McClenon, you work in dispute resolution but really have done a fantastic job here at stirring up dispute where there is none. For the record, there is no evidence of anti-Myanmar prejudice and the suggestion that there has been by any of the three good-standing users ( Mean as custard, Onel5969, Polyamorph) that redirected this page is offensive. Polyamorph ( talk) 06:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment - The statement that I have been "stirring up dispute where there is none" is seriously mistaken. There certainly is a controversy about whether Tha Hla Shwe should be a biography of a living person or a redirect. That controversy was there before I became involved, and I became involved only because a request was made to help resolve a controversy. There is and has been a dispute. There is a dispute, a blank-and-redirect dispute, and a meta-dispute, a dispute over how to resolve a dispute. (As to anti-Myanmar prejudice, I wondered whether there was a prejudice. If there isn't, that answers that question, but it doesn't make the blank-and-redirect dispute go away.) If anyone is proposing that the blank-and-redirect dispute cannot be settled at AFD because it is not a true deletion dispute, I am willing to consider a suggestion for an alternate means of resolving the dispute. Please either allow AFD to continue as a method of resolving this blank-and-redirect dispute, or propose an alternate method of resolving the blank-and-redirect dispute. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I am not mistaken. You don't accuse good faith editors of racial prejudice without good reason (i.e. evidence). An retraction is required. There is no dispute, as mentioned in my comment above I tagged the article requesting more sources and that is the end of the matter. No one is advocating deletion. No one is advocating redirection. All we are advocating is to improve the sources (I've looked but can't find suitable ones, so other editors will have to do this). But AfD is not for cleanup. Polyamorph ( talk) 20:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment - If no one is advocating redirection at this time, this AFD can be closed with a conclusion of Keep. This AFD was initiated because there had been revert-warring following a blank-and-redirect; if no one is advocating blank-and-redirect any more, then the dispute has been resolved. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 17:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply

E&N Rail Trail

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

Article about a hiking and biking trail, referenced only to the primary source content of the local government that built and operates it rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about it. As always, every piece of municipal infrastructure on earth is not automatically guaranteed a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- the question is whether independent sources have paid it enough attention to make its existence noteworthy, not just whether its owner's own self-published website provides technical verification of existence. Bearcat ( talk) 21:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi Bearcat, I created this page as one of my first Wikipages because of large of a project this is. It runs through several cities, sparked multiple stories in the media for many years, and still ongoing. I can do a basic Google Search and pull up a few newspapers covering the story. Local papers and Provincial. The CRD is actually a government entity that runs projects on the Island. Furthermore, you can't have the EN Trail without the various other trails such as the Galloping Goose, which are smaller in scope. You would be hard pressed to find anyone saying that trailis not of extreme importance to the day to day function of multiple cities on the Island. Even the Mayor during the last debates had it as a major issue during the last Victoria mayoral election To be quite blunt, the EN Trail has upturned everyone's life in Victoria and beyond do to the extensive years of ripping up all the major roads to build this trail between several cities.

Here are some story links: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/rail-trail-langford-victoria-1.3896466 https://www.goldstreamgazette.com/news/work-continues-on-en-rail-trail/ https://www.cheknews.ca/new-section-along-en-rail-trail-to-begin-construction-in-fall-480488/ https://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/6-million-loan-urged-to-speed-up-e-n-rail-trail-1.2369368

Hopefully this is will show the importance of this project and to the region. Thank you for your time considering this article. ReliableShick ( talk) 21:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. Per previous discussion here, all state/provincial parks (current or former) are considered notable. Vulcan's Forge ( talk) 04:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply

This isn't a state or provincial park — it's a municipal recreational facility, which doesn't get the same automatic presumption of notability just for existing in the absence of more than just a smattering of local coverage. Bearcat ( talk) 22:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. As above AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 16:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Please read WP:JUSTAVOTE. You need to give a reason, not just a word. Bearcat ( talk) 23:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep There's enough coverage of the trail on the CBC and in local papers that I think you could write an article that passes WP:GNG, even if the current article doesn't. SportingFlyer talk 17:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JC7V ( talk) 04:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep a significant amount of coverage, both good and bad, can be found to meet WP:GNG. As a "commuter connection" this can be viewed as a road (that meets notability).-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 05:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep. It gets a ton of news coverage [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] plus this book, although that only gives it a paragraph. Spinning Spark 13:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep: Enough significant coverage exists. SL93 ( talk) 15:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep What I'm not getting is if the Galloping Goose Trail is ok to have on Wikipedia, and this is MUCH bigger roadway for non-motorists, then why the EN Trail does not qualify? The Notability factor is how wildly divisive this trail has been for over a decade. Living on the Island, There is limited land and even less access to roads. The concept of diverting space from cars and trucks for just non motorized vehicles is significant due to the political shift towards pushing for greener solutions in cities. The green roadway systems on the Island are used as a model for other cities in the world like Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco, and other international cities. Mostly because we have limited space, harsh winters, and a massively growing population. Makes for a great model to apply to other cities in the world about going green with limited space. So I can understand why a person would say "who cares about this Canadian commuter trail", but when you factor in the politics, the usage of such trails in green projects globally, then you can see the real value. I figured since this trail is bigger, more political, and more covered than the other trails in the area such as the Galloping Goose, that the EN Trail would be a great companion article to complement the other trails in the system already on Wikipedia. ReliableShick ( talk) 01:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Other articles are not a reliable guide to what is acceptable on Wikipedia, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Every case is considered on its own merits, but it looks like this one is only going to close one way. Spinning Spark 03:43, 11 December 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. Sandstein 11:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

El Avram

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

No indication of notability to pass WP:NCORP. WP:Run-of-the-mill venue with no distinguishing characteristics. Sources are business listings and largely passing mentions. Reywas92^Talk 01:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 9. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 06:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 06:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 06:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete No evidence of notability. Skeptic from Britain ( talk) 13:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Does not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. All my searches turned up routine mentions and nothing substantial to warrant notability. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 10:35, 16 December 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) Ifnord ( talk) 03:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Carriage Room

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

No indication of notability to pass WP:NCORP. WP:Run-of-the-mill venue with no distinguishing characteristics. Reywas92^Talk 01:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 9. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 05:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 05:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 05:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 05:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:GNG. User:Reywas92 has nominated several articles for deletion at once, so now I have to scramble to find sources for multiple subjects, but I believe there's sufficient coverage for an article. I've spent at least an hour combing through some old newspaper articles, and now the article has 22 inline citations. Hopefully this can be further expanded over time. --- Another Believer _(
Talk) 06:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:GNG and Another Believer's recent expansion, which included boosting the number of references from 2 to 22. There's significant history covered in the article now. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 18:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep – Per sources in the article, appears to meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:AUD, the latter per statewide coverage in The Oregonian. Most of the sources are not linked, so AGF. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
- Yes, I expanded the article by using my Multnomah County Library membership to access The Oregonian archives. --- Another Believer _(
  Talk) 03:31, 16 December 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) Ifnord ( talk) 03:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Eagle Houston

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

No indication of notability to pass WP:NCORP. WP:Run-of-the-mill gay bar with no distinguishing characteristics. News of fire is not notability. Unexplained prod removal. Reywas92^Talk 01:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 9. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:GNG. User:Reywas92 has nominated several articles for deletion at once, so now I have to scramble to find sources for multiple subjects, but I believe there's sufficient coverage for an article. There are now several references in the article, and I've not even searched newspaper archives, local or otherwise. Sure, more sources are needed to help flesh out this article, but I believe there's a story to be told here about one of the most popular gay bars in the United States. --- Another Believer _(
Talk) 02:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
- I still don't see how additional local news stories about a fire and local paper listings establish notability. None of these pass the "substantive" part of GNG. Reywas92^Talk 21:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:GNG, and subsequent improvements since this AFD tagging. Personally, I would see its original state as a stub qualification. However, it certainly qualifies now. Given the title of the nightclub, Wikipedia's Find sources toolbar, and generally other searches via Bing or Google, bring up results for Houston, Texas, "The Eagle has landed", or any number of possibilities. This is one of those searches where the editor has to know how to filter. It doesn't hurt to have some knowledge of LGBT publications and how to find them. This article should be kept. — Maile ( talk) 15:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 05:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 05:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 05:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 05:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. Gay bars don't need "distinguishing characteristics" to be notable enough for Wikipedia articles, they just need enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. I'll grant that Another Believer did once undertake a misguided project of trying to start a single-sourced stub about every single gay bar that got blurbed in one isolated listicle — but they clearly learned from that, because they're trying much harder to source gay bars properly now and I've never been able to identify any serious problems with their work on gay bars since then. Bearcat ( talk) 20:52, 10 December 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. Redirect or move is up to editors. Sandstein 11:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

List of registered political parties in Australia

List of registered political parties in Australia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)} – ( View AfD · of registered political parties in Australia Stats)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Catiline52 ( talk) 01:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

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

As was discussed in the talk page, the list simply repeats information found in List of political parties in Australia. I suggest that the page isredirected towards the latter page's section for registered federal political parties. Catiline52 ( talk) 01:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete/redirect. I've never even seen this page before - registered political parties are always documented at List of political parties in Australia, and this has so few edits it's clearly spent a lot of time being more outdated than the main page. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 01:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Redirect to List of political parties in Australia. This article just serves as a less useful content fork. Ajf773 ( talk) 04:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Redirect per previous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:2C2C:3E90:D92A:82 ( talk) 05:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. This is a content fork without substantive material not included in List of political parties in Australia, and no redirects with similar titles exist (such as List of registered political parties in France to List of political parties in France or List of registered political parties in Japan to List of political parties in Japan) that would merit the preservation of this title as a redirect. Also, I haven't seen any lists of unregistered political parties that would serve as a complement to such an article, as all such lists exist combined under titles such as List of political parties in Australia. ComplexRational ( talk) 20:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Redirect to List of political parties in Australia. Qualitist ( talk) 15:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete to allow pagemove. Given the page size and that the registered and defunct sections have different structures and functions, split out the defunct section from List of political parties in Australia as suggested by Cateline52. Move the registered party article under this title, and hatnote that list of political parties in Australia redirects there, with a pointer provided to the defunct list article. No objection to other country articles doing a similar split, but no requirement either (Does France really have only eight historical parties?). ^~ Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~
(Talk)~ 03:53, 14 December 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) 07:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Maria Olívia da Silva

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

Another longevity claimant with almost no information. The majority of this article is irrelevant filler material about other old people and the standard "secret to longevity". Once stripped of that, we're left with a couple of dates and a nationality; a list on the Longevity claims article can handle that. WP:NOPAGE here. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 01:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete This article fails WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. The article says very little about this obvious fraudster. She scammed some media coverage, but the article still says more about other people then it does her. Maybe deserves a mention at Longevity myths (her age claim is so absurd she doesn't even qualify for longevity claims), but nothing more. Newshunter12 ( talk) 02:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest. This is similar to other few recently nominated articles. These articles lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. We are not supposed to be a platform for righting great wrongs. Rzvas ( talk) 06:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:03, 9 December 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. Sandstein 11:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

AnneMunition

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

Videogame player who streams her games on Twitch and has followers. Sponsored by Corsair, a company that produces PC hardware and periphericals, sources are either blogs, no mainstream, Twitch related, or Corsair sponsored. No established GNG noted. 1l2l3k ( talk) 00:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Surprising!

1. AnneMunition (born May 12, 1990, age 28), is an American Twitch streamer and internet personality. As of October 2018, she has more than 400,000 followers on Twitch, and more than 13.5 million channel views Source Twitch.tv --- It's a promotional website and nothing

2. The second paragraph is cited but i can't see even just passing of mentions on The Daily Dot and lbpost.com which are no less than promotional or money generating sites.

3. On streamersquare.com, they said (Participants: UGRGaming, Annemunition, DistractedElf and Annemunition – Not very affected. Blessed to be part of a wonderful community that accepts) .... the article in question should be deleted immediately. Farooqahmadbhat ( talk) 19:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG. The award section is just one award, which she didn't win. One of legions of Twitch streamers, no real claim to notability. Ifnord ( talk) 03:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - As already mentioned, this fails WP:ANYBIO and is nothing more than a normal streamer that hasn't done anything significant enough to stand out from the rest. An article is excessive and not required. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 10:53, 16 December 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.

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook