Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 13 July 15 July >

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. page deleted by CactusWriter (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 10:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Olaolu Akorede Olabode

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

References cited in the article do not focus on this subject. A quick google search also do not show any proof of notability. Article creator is currently blocked for sockpuppetry. Jamie Tubers ( talk) 22:14, 14 July 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. MBisanz talk 02:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry

Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry (  | 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 necessarily a rivalry, both schools have no notable history. However, both did play on the field for nearly forty years, but I don't think it could be considered a rivalry due this fact. There are many Southeastern Conference teams who played traditionally before and after the expansion of Southeastern Conference, and don't consider them as rivals. I also could not find any reliable sources to support this as a major rivalry. CollegeRivalry ( talk) 20:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom; the only source that describes this as a rivalry is a fan-blog that calls it "forgotten". It doesn't remotely compare to Georgia's rivalries with Auburn, Florida, or Georgia Tech. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per power~enwiki. Jweiss11 ( talk) 03:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. My searches do not reveal significant coverage dealing with this series as a historical rivalry. That said, there is IMO also room for stand-alone articles about historically significant series that have had a particularly long history, major upsets or multiple match-ups where both teams were highly ranked. Here, the history is not so long -- the period of annual play ran only from 1966 to 2002. Further, there has not been even one game where both teams were ranked in the top 10 -- the highest ranked matchup was 1968 (#13 vs. #17). Nor is there a history of major upsets -- the biggest upset was 1967 (unranked Ole Miss upset #3 Georgia in an early season game). Cbl62 ( talk) 05:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – nothing more than a cross-divisional matchup that occurs once every few years. PCN 02 WPS 05:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Pile on vote here. The very first reference is titled "the forgotten rivalry." "Forgotten" could probably be interpreted as "not notable" here. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 11:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    NOTE: Focus on the word "forgotten" is misplaced. Remember, notability is not temporary. Accordingly, a historic rivalry from 50 or even 100 years ago that is defunct or "forgotten" by today's fan base remains notable for our purposes. Here, my searches focused on the years when the GA-MS series was most active, and I did not find significant coverage even then dealing with it as a rivalry. So it's not that this is a "forgotten" rivalry, but, rather, that it appears to be a "never was" rivalry. Cbl62 ( talk) 16:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, and merge as needed. This may be a real thing, under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, but clearly not independently WP:Notable.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:47, 17 July 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. MBisanz talk 02:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Tanner Mayes

Tanner Mayes (  | 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 BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The award listed, "Best New Starlet of the Year (People's Choice)", is not significant. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete nothing even close to notability. We have a clear overabundance of articles on pornographic performers. I know I will get attacked for saying it, but it is true. Any reasonable criteria that required as much reliable source coverage of them as require of most people would cutr this category in half. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:29, 16 July 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 keep per WP:SKCRIT#2. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 18:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Onision

Onision (  | 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 important enough for his own Wikipedia page. U injury ( talk) 19:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: Above user have been blocked by Ronhjones for being a vandalism only account. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 11:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Pinging Ronhjones. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 12:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 11:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 11:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 11:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 11:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Nosebagbear: I don't know. I thought I might add that comment in case the closing admin isn't aware of the fact. It's more of an FYI. Perhaps another user who's more knowledgable of Wikipedia's policy might chime in? -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 12:07, 16 July 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 keep per WP:SKCRIT#2. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 18:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

It's Alive! (card game)

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

It's not really important, and doesn't need its own Wikipedia page. U injury ( talk) 19:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Can you please give a reason as to why this card game isn't notable by backing up your claim by checking wikipedia's notability guidelines to see if this game fails them? This AFD seems to be suspicious due to all the warnings on your talk page related to edits. 344917661X ( talk)
However, i'm not sure if this card game is notable enough. 344917661X ( talk) 20:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 12:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 12:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 12:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 12:58, 16 July 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. Article has been significantly expanded since nomination. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Roy Moller

AfDs for this article:
Roy Moller (  | 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 has simply been re-created with no references still, some ten years later! I gather the creator intends to use the enternal links as refs at a future date, but the BBC link isn't anything usable as it just lists a handful of songs that have been played on the radio (presumably BBC Scotland). Beyond mentions on some blog type websites, Google doesn't bring much up on this artist. Todmuggins ( talk) 19:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 04:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ John: to notify the article creator about this AfD. AllyD ( talk) 08:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Obviously as the article creator I am going to say Keep. I believe the sources, particularly the two BBC ones, comfortably establish notability. It is an untruth to say Page has simply been re-created...; I did not even look at the deleted version from ten years ago but have based the article on more recent sources. -- John ( talk) 11:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vexations ( talk) 11:37, 15 July 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 Withdrawn by nominator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurricanehink ( talk • contribs)

Hurricane Beryl

Hurricane Beryl (  | 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 Category 1 hurricane, failed to even affect land as a tropical system. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Content can be accommodated easily at 2018 Atlantic hurricane season#Hurricane Beryl. Buttons0603 ( talk) 18:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn by nominator - wasn't aware that a merge discussion would be more appropriate, apologies. Buttons0603 ( talk) 19:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Several things wrong here. This is not how you request this (it could be a redirect) and second the article is too large now to fit in the 2018 AHS page. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 19:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Oppose – Doesn't fail NOTNEWS, sufficient news sources in multiple languages covering the event. Impact on land is applicable to the overall storm regardless of whether or not it was a tropical cyclone at the time. AfD is inappropriate for this situation; a merge discussion on the talk page is how this should be handled. ~ Cyclonebiskit ( chat) 19:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Oppose – I echo the sentiments that Cyclonebiskit noted earlier. A tropical cyclone need not remain a tropical cyclone to be newsworthy, particularly when impacting land. From what I see, there is fairly clear, reliable, and verifiable coverage of Beryl's effects in the Caribbean, regardless if they were remnants of the storm. TheAustinMan( Talk· Works) 19:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Strong Oppose – My statements echo those of Cyclonebiskit and TheAustinMan, wherein a tropical cyclone itself does not need to be a tropical cyclone to be noteworthy. Beryl was in addition a very unusual tropical cyclone, developing in the Main Development Region within the otherwise unfavorable month of July, as well as regenerating over the Gulf Stream as a subtropical cyclone. I see nothing here to remove. Cooper 19:08, 14 July 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. MBisanz talk 02:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Jeremy Triefenbach

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

Possible hoax. I can't find any evidence this person existed. There was a German family named Triefenbach that moved to St. Louis and Illinois, including a Johann Heinrich Triefenbach (8 May 1820 – 8 August 1871) but he adopted the name Henry, not Jeremy. And anyway I can't find any evidence of notability, amazing survival story, inventor of outdoor recreation (what?) or this autobiography, It's a Good Deal. Only Jeremy Triefenbach I found that had any notability was a high school football quarterback in St. Louis. —Мандичка YO 😜 18:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • ′′′Delete′′′ As possible hoax and due to lack of sources identified to substantiate notability. Edison ( talk) 18:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom; possible hoax. I see no evidence of book titled "it's a good deal" by anyone of this name. No references and no claim of significance or importance. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - this article does not cite any sources and is extremely vague on this man's dates - it just says he was born in the early 1820s and died at the end of the nineteenth century. Vorbee ( talk) 18:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I have a sense that Wikipedia coverage of 19th-century German and expatriate German educationists is less than it could be. Karl G. Maeser has been the subject of a major book for example, and at some point I will undertake to better align the article with insights from the work of A. LeGrand Richards. The article on the person he allegedly influenced is in severe need of editing for flow, but the article on Triefenbach is just not supported by anything. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • our article on Hahn actually claims his notions of "outdoor education" were drawn from Bernhard Zimmerman who was director of physical education at the University of Goenigen. It also places the emergence of these ideas, at least on Hahn's part, probably in the 1930s, although it is a bit iffy on timing details. The fact is that various ideas and manifestations of outdoor education go back to the founding of the Boy Scouts, and many other movements about the same time in 1910, and there are other things going on before that. Richard Ian Kimball' recreation in Zion work begins to suggest this was widespread in the 1900-1925 time frame, but the birth of the YMCa is in 1844, Naismith invents basketball at a YMCA school in 1891, and there are lots of other notions of renweal from sport and the outdoors going around for a long time. The article on Kurt Hahn says about nothing on his early life, it says he founded a school in 1920, and then skips to his excile from Germany in about 1933. Hahn was the cofounder of Outward Bound, but I see less than clear sourcing to make this the actual start of outdoor education. Scouting was formed in 1907, and organized camping existed earlier than that. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It is claimed that the forest schools started in 1927 in Wisconsin under Dean H. L. Russell of the University of Wisconsin College of Agriculture were the first example of such a program. On the other hand, the paragraph on the Wisconsin forest schools in the article on forest schools lacks any sources, so I can not at this point vouch for its accuracy. This is something that could use more study. What is clear is that no one anywhere outside of this Wikipedia article seems to connect Triefenbach to the rise of this movement. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Mention of the snowdrift survival story, and the supposed autobiography, originated as far as I can tell in the snowdrift article by an IP edit, five days before this article was created with no mention of it at first. Deep Gabriel ( talk) 23:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • A reference added when the article was created was probably intended to link to the page now archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20070208121724/http://www.isu.edu/outdoor/history.htm but there is no mention of Triefenbach there. Peter James ( talk) 13:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:52, 18 July 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 keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 1000 05:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Tom Spahn

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

Has a lot of unreliable sources. » Shadowowl | talk 17:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I believe he has won three Daytime Emmys - that is where his nominations are anyway. While not as prestigious as Primetime Emmys, I think his overall body of work is sufficient for notability, and it's not a hoax. [7] —Мандичка YO 😜 18:29, 14 July 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 keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 1000 05:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Universal Soul

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

This article does not contain reliable sources, only garbage ones. » Shadowowl | talk 17:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:13, 15 July 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 keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 1000 05:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Power "Kosa Leka"

Power "Kosa Leka" (  | 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 article states that he won an award, but there are no sources for that. This article has a lot of garbage sources. » Shadowowl | talk 17:42, 14 July 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. Tone 06:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Ørmen

Ørmen (  | 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 adding references to this article, I realised not a whole lot exist and looking at Google Maps it is quite obvious why. Therefore, expanding this article is going to be close to impossible as far as notability go. The article is linked to by List of villages in Østfold Baerentp ( talk) 17:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 20 July 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 20:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Glen Meadows

Glen Meadows (  | 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 BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sourced to online directories and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 14 July 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 keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 1000 05:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Martín Deiros

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

4 sources, of which 2 are unreliable and 1 is a mention. The article says that he won the Pampa award, however, this is not stated in the source. » Shadowowl | talk 16:57, 14 July 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 20:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Pitambari Products Pvt. Ltd

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

Puff piece by undisclosed paid sockfarm. Includes garbage sources. » Shadowowl | talk 16:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Definately a product of bad UPE. Sources are all pretty abysmal, and do not appear independent. Couldnt find any others. Does not meet WP:GNG. or WP:CORPDEPTH. Curdle ( talk) 12:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:17, 18 July 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 Irdning#Sport. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 20:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

ATV Arena

ATV Arena (  | 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 to establish notability or satisfy WP:GNG. Says some notable teams have trained there while passing through, but no indication of any actual notable games or events taking place. Also poorly referenced. Jellyman ( talk) 16:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping if you had replied 14:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping if you had replied 14:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping if you had replied 14:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping if you had replied 14:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It exists, and it's mentioned a lot, but doesn't appear to be the subject of in-depth coverage. If you exclude a long list of false positives [8] not much comes up. If you switch to news sources after this exclusion chain, it's just jack [9]. Even general web hits are mostly photos. I.e., the training ground is real, and it gets used for taking player photos, and people mention it in passing, but no one seems to be writing about the arena itself – its founding and history, its significance in the world. It's rather like trying to have an article about building Mariana 3 on the Apple Inc. campus.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 03:37, 18 July 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 20:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Jade-Blue Eclipse

Jade-Blue Eclipse (  | 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 BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Alleged crimes listed do not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Interest shown by only one reliable source, a local paper. Not enough to pass WP:BASIC. No real claim of notability per WP:NACTOR or WP:PORNBIO. An undocumented immigrant using a stolen ID doesn't rise to notability per WP:N/CA. Colorful but not notable. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:43, 16 July 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 keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 1000 05:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Mason Neely

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

Has no references. » Shadowowl | talk 16:44, 14 July 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 United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2018. MBisanz talk 02:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Andy Kim (politician)

Andy Kim (politician) (  | 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 political staffer and candidate. Does not pass WP:GNG as few sources discuss him, and the ones that do do so in the context of a political campaign, where the election is the subject. Does not pass WP:NPOL as merely a candidate for higher office. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
There's always a news story about every damn candidate in the entire United States every week. And having his name mentioned in a news story doesn't automatically assist in building his notability, either — he has to be the subject of a piece of coverage before it assists in demonstrating notability, not just a person whose name happens to show up in coverage of something else. Bearcat ( talk) 18:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
He is the subject of almost every article cited on his page. Lebanonman19 ( talk) 05:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Coverage which exists specifically in the context of an election campaign does not assist in building the notability of a person who wasn't already notable for other reasons before becoming a candidate, because that type of coverage always exists for every candidate in every election at the federal and state and municipal levels. So the only sources that count as potential notability builders here are the ones that exist outside the context of the campaign itself, and all of the sources that exist outside the campaign context here, such as #9 "At war over Obama's new war in Iraq", are mere namechecks of his existence in coverage about other things. For campaign coverage to contribute notability in and of itself, it would have to be shown that he's getting so much more campaign coverage than everybody else is that he would have a credible claim to being special — candidates are not automatically deemed notable enough for encyclopedia articles just because some campaign coverage exists, because there's no candidate for whom some campaign coverage ever doesn't exist. Bearcat ( talk) 15:41, 17 July 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. MBisanz talk 02:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Taylor Rain

Taylor Rain (  | 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 BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The awards listed, such as "FOXE Award – Vixen of the Year", are not significant. K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:48, 14 July 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. MBisanz talk 02:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

DBL Partners

DBL Partners (  | 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 directory-like page on an unremarkable venture capital fund. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/Mokwepa with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:02, 18 July 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 20:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

List of songs with rhythmic train samples

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

Useless list. Possible incomplete, and not sourced. Text in gray box copied from [10]. » Shadowowl | talk 16:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:05, 18 July 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 keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Hhkohh ( talk) 12:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Macau national under-23 football team

Macau national under-23 football team (  | 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 reference proof notability, fails GNG B dash ( talk) 16:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 16:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 16:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 16:27, 14 July 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 Meshuggah. I specifically rejected the argument to keep which suggested we could find better sources on the band's own website. That's pretty much the definition of not a WP:RS. There's no reason to delete the history; it may be useful for material to merge. Such a merge is clearly not part of the consensus, but not prohibited either. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Jens Kidman

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

Unreliable sources ; All except 1 (the loudwire article) are unreliable. I cannot access the Loudwire article due to GDPR access prevention. Also contains WP:FLOWERY language like famous and unique while those claims are not sourced. » Shadowowl | talk 16:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I have seen the Loudwire article and it does not go into any kind of detail about Kidman's life or career, which would be necessary to satisfy notability requirements. Instead, the article says that Kidman was replaced by a cardboard cutout on tour dates during a period of illness. There are statements from the band and from Kidman, but nothing to establish notability beyond being a member of the band. Binksternet ( talk) 16:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think more should be (and could be) included about Jens Kidman's life and career. This article shouldn't necessarily be deleted. Sure, there aren't enough referenced bits of news on his page, but that could be easily fixed. More properly referenced articles about Jens could be found if we look a little harder on the internet or on Meshuggah's official website. Mr. Brain ( talk) 03:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:56, 18 July 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 keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 1000 05:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Kuppathu Raja

Kuppathu Raja (  | 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 has 1 source, for the soundtrack. All the other information is unsourced. » Shadowowl | talk 16:00, 14 July 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. MBisanz talk 02:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Concrete Immortalz

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

Has no reliable sources. » Shadowowl | talk 15:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:53, 18 July 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. MBisanz talk 02:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Real Fighter (2016)

Real Fighter (2016) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS ( talk| c| em) 15:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 15:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 15:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • delete completely non notable film. Its been completely refspammed with non RS- They are pretty much all either crowd sourced or aggregated info movie celebrity sites. None of the information is in depth, its all just directory listings. Some of that rubbish has even found its way into the article itself "and cinebee rated 24 out of 100" Cinebee is a crowd sourced site, and precisely two users came up with that score. Curdle ( talk) 14:30, 18 July 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 keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 1000 05:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Le Soir de Tunisie

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

Unsourced article with a spammy youtube link. » Shadowowl | talk 15:30, 14 July 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. Some sources were presented, but they didn't convince the other reviewers that WP:N was established. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Stev´nn Hall

Stev´nn Hall (  | 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 are certainly sources but I do not believe that they are of sufficient quality to establish notability for a visual artist. There is nothing in the article that suggests that he passes WP:Artist either. Nor does a search throw up anything, other than evidence t TheLongTone ( talk) 15:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 16:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 16:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci (✉) 18:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The only source that is of any use for notability is the Globe and Mail review, and that's just a short review amongst several others. Perhaps the creators.vice.com link is useful, but I can't personally verify that. The Thomas Waugh essay ( google books link here) only mentions him in a screen grab and caption. The article's claim that his "satyrical short film 'Bondage Television' deserved broad commentary by the film writer Thomas Waugh in the context of masculine sexual orientation" is not backed up by the cited text itself (nor does it make much sense as a sentence -- Hall's short film deserved more "broad commentary" by "the film writer Thomas Waugh"? Or is Waugh claiming it deserves more broad commentary in general?) Either way, it doesn't seem to appear in the cited text and cannot be verified. If the original author of this Wikipedia article is making some sort of claim about what Waugh has or has not done as a scholar on behalf of Hall, that would be original research and a POV issue. Further searching turns up very little, a few mentions that only confirm Hall as an artist, but nothing that supports WP:GNG (or WP:ARTIST for that matter). freshacconci (✉) 18:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Globe article is good, but it's not enough. Lacks RS to establish GNG. 96.127.242.226 ( talk) 23:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is far too dependent on blogs and primary sources, and not nearly enough on reliable sources, to deem him notable — but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced much better than this. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do much better than this. Bearcat ( talk) 17:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above - Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 20:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This source extensively talks about the artist and the artworks. The translated title is: "The photographer Stev'nn Hall portrayed the painful relationship between the conscious and the unconscious." The article writes "The mixed media artist from Toronto, Canada, Stev'nn Hall, in his series 'Against Himself' makes an atypical approach to how we relate to ourselves. It is extremely difficult to put forward the feelings we repress every day in contrast to the face we show to people close to us. However, it is not possible to deny that those feelings, impulses and intentions are there, present, all the time" and "In what seems to be an exercise in bringing the unconscious to the front, the series shows portraits of different individuals a difficult facet to play. Naked, humiliated, hanged and so on, individuals attack themselves in different ways, questioning what these signs of power made to oneself could mean." (The machine translation is not great, but I think the meaning is decipherable.) The article goes on to say in translation "On the one hand, they could refer to the unconscious impulses that we seek to tame. However, on the other side, it seems that Hall's photographs and montages speak about the complex relationship that the mind has with the body. The physical instances that compel us to put ourselves at the greatest possible risk, feel adrenaline, activate it, being pampered by a physical instantiation that stops us" and "The photographs give free rein to our relationship with our body, our mind and what we love and hate about ourselves. You can see more, below." That last reference is to the ten photographs of the artist's work that are included in this review. Definitely a substantial review. I believe the source is Vice Media. Bus stop ( talk) 12:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Also, this extensive review addresses Hall as an artist, especially the dissimilarity as well as the connections between the two styles of work he has produced—photographs of people and photographs of landscapes/seascapes. I think this is a serious review that attempts to probe the significance of the output of the artist. Bus stop ( talk) 13:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Also, I've added, as an external link, this 2011 interview with Stevnn' Hall which I think is worth everyone's 33 minutes. The seriousness of the artist is apparent and it is informative of the artist's concerns. Bus stop ( talk) 22:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closing administrator On (3:00 AM/July 19, 2018) I edited the article adding hopefully more comprehensive references and making a few text changes in an attempt to address some of the above comments. Thanks to all intervening participants for their contribution.
  • Further note to closing administrator On (5:00 PM/July 20, 2018) I edited the article again, making various fixes in attention the above discussion, hoping to improve the article and its chances to be kept. Thank you. Neuralia ( talk) 20:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment he is not listed in the CHIN (Canadian Heritage Information Network) list of " Artists in Canada", which is a pretty easy way of determining ballpark notability, by seeing if any of the contributing "Twenty-three libraries and art galleries" across Canada have a file on him. If 23 libraries and galleries do not see him as notable enough to start a file, I am not sure why we should. They do have 42,700 other artists listed. 96.127.242.226 ( talk) 02:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
"I am not sure why we should" I think we should. Sources take the artist seriously. Recognition is accorded the artist in the sources available to us. The author, RM Vaughn, focusses on three reviews in this source. The first of the three is that of Stev´nn Hall, and the headline derives from the work of Stev´nn Hall, reading "Electric skyscapes are a kick in the head". That is a reference to the two different styles in which the artist works. This is mentioned in the body of the review. One style involves human figures, in aggressive poses. The other involves landscapes, in which are sometimes found fiery skies. This is not a superficial review. It touches upon not only the significance of the work but the techniques used to bring the work about. This alone could establish notability. This source importantly includes what look to me as ten good quality photographs to represent some of the photographer's work. It characterizes him as a mixed media artist, something our article should mention. Vice Media, the publisher of this review, is a well-regarded source. This is a well-written and thoughtful review. Though not easily quantifiable, that is something we should be looking for, to establish notability. Bus stop ( talk) 02:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
You are just repeating everything you already said in an earlier comment. Please avoid using repetition and walls of text to bludgeon the discussion. 96.127.242.226 ( talk) 03:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
But you do notice that Vice Media, which is a good-quality source, includes ten images of this artist's work in this review. Can you dismiss that as simply not sufficient for establishing notability? In my opinion notability is amply satisfied in the instance of this artist. Please tell me your thoughts on this. Bus stop ( talk) 11:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nothing that shows he meets WP:Artist. There are no reviews of exhibitions or gallery openings etc; art blogs may like using the pretty pictures, but noone important seems to have taken notice of him yet. Curdle ( talk) 07:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Hi Curdle— this would be a review of an art gallery exhibition. Bus stop ( talk) 11:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The artist has won significant critical attention. Both of the sources that I've commented upon at length constitute "significant critical attention". Could the attention be more significant? Of course. But the above is adequate to establish that this is a serious artist working long-term in a well-defined area who has garnered a modicum of recognition. Wikipedia has standards of notability but when they are met you can't keep demanding more. Our standard should not be understood to only include only stodgy well-accepted artists but also those whose careers are relatively new. When an artist's name is the key factor that makes the artwork good, that artist is already a has-been. On the other hand the artist whose work alone is the key to whatever meager degree of success they have achieved, and whose name is unknown—that would be my idea of a "non-stodgy" artist. We have ample indication in sources that the work of this artist is beginning to open up doors. Both of the above sources are prominent reviews of this emerging artist's work. Our notability standards are not specific as to what degree of prominence is adequate but we can use common sense. On a separate note I can't tell what you are referring to by "some commentary above insinuating subject's artistic merit. What is that a reference to? Do you mean on the part of sources or on the part of editors? Bus stop ( talk) 12:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The subject's artistic merit has been insinuated by editors. Namely, you. You see, I may agree that some subject is notable in real life, but this does not mean I automatically believe the subject is also Wikinotable. This encyclopaedia has its own rules. Within which, verifiability through the testimony of reliable sources is a paramount one. And since Wikipedia accepts sources rather than personal testimony, and established sources more than non-established ones, it figures that Wikipedia would be perforce slanted towards more "stodgy well-accepted artists" and fewer artists "whose careers are relatively new." So, Wikipedia will never be the encyclopaedia of (or even a guide for) the Avant-Guarde. I have fully accepted this state of affairs; and you should too, I think, for the sake of your peace of mind. - The Gnome ( talk) 14:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
P.S. I normally welcome chinwags between editors, Bus stop. What I want to avoid, with all due respect, is another waterfall of impassioned and obliterating biblical thunder like the one you unleashed last time. So, I'm engaging here very, very carefully. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk) 14:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
(after edit conflict) Please tell me or show me where I have insinuated the subject's artistic merit, The Gnome. Bus stop ( talk) 14:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
PS—of course, I have not, The Gnome. Bus stop ( talk) 15:04, 22 July 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 merged into Marion Section by creator. ansh 666 23:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Bombay, Jersey City

Bombay, Jersey City (  | 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 appear to be a valid name for the neighborhood. None of the references use the term Bombay, New Jersey Google maps doesn't recognize it, and a google search ends up pointing only to Wikipedia articles. I prod-ed the article but that was removed with the comment "It's now a valid neighborhood" but without any sources that confirm that. regentspark ( comment) 13:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Google is a good search engine, but neither Google (nor any other) search engine nor Google Maps is always up to date. The fact is that Bombay is now a valid unincorporated and loosely defined Jersey City neighborhood, to which the article's multiple editors have already attested consensus. That consensus itself meets the article's Wikipedia standard for being. Castncoot ( talk) 18:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • A core Wikipedia standard is WP:Verifiability as proven by reliable sources, not the assertions of two Wikipedia editors. The article's references don't support the concept of "Bombay" as neighborhood in Jersey City. And it is not for Wikipedia to push that concept on the world without proof of notability. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • It's actually not two, but three editors, all independent, and all with robust New Jersey topic experience. If someone without New Jersey topic experience has a problem with a particular statement, then the appropriate action would be to place a citation needed tag onto that statement - that is the usual Wikipedia protocol - not to request wiping out an entire article due to their own topical inexperience. Castncoot ( talk) 04:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • There already are plenty of reliable sources quoted. This article falls under the same format as other short articles, no different. The other primary editors including the creator should also be informed of this discussion. Castncoot ( talk) 18:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
None of these "reliable sources" state that the neighborhood is known as "Bombay". Re your claims about New Jersey experience, please note that Wikipedia is not a "crowd sourced" encyclopedia but rather is a reliably sourced encyclopedia.-- regentspark ( comment) 21:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete none of the articles I've seen reference the neighborhood directly or indirectly, and I can't find any sources on my own which reference it in a WP:BEFORE search. I can't find any reliable sources which show it's an actual defined neighborhood. SportingFlyer talk 21:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Seems to fail WP:GEOLAND. The references do not list this neighborhood by name, and while I am seeing references to it at DuckDuckGo, nothing is jumping out at me to indicate that this is notable. There are mentions of the Indian-American population of Jersey City, but that's nothing that can't be covered in the city's own article. Actually, while we can't use it as a WP:RS, I do see a YouTube video with a description saying that this is the same as India Square, in which case this would be a duplicate article. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 21:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I hate to sound blunt, but why don't you be bold and take care of that yourself? No worries, I will put the template on their talk page (not that you really have to use a template if you don't know how to do that, it's just easier that way). I'm not trying to come across as mean, it's just what you are asking is not hard to do and I'm trying to make sure you are aware of that. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 00:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Actually, they were already notified here. Have a blessed day. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 00:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Looks like they've been on a Wikibreak since May 31st, 2018. Let's give them a chance to return to Wikipedia first. Castncoot ( talk) 01:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
There is a source (from the India Square article) that Little India is located in the Jersey City neighborhood of "Little Bombay." Kiniry, Laura. "Moon Handbooks New Jersey", Avalon Travel Publishing, 2006. pg. 34 ISBN 1-56691-949-5. Retrieved April 11, 2015 Irehdna ( talk) 02:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
That, at best, merits a line in the India Square article (with the qualified term "Little Bombay"). Not the creation of a new neighborhood "Bombay, NJ". (Using a better source than a travel guide, which are not generally considered reliable.)-- regentspark ( comment) 02:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
That's where we beg to differ. They are two different entities. India Square is simply the center of Bombay, or New Bombay, or Little Bombay, as people in the area are referring to the encompassing neighborhood these days. Each entity is entitled to its article with reliable sources, and travel guides are not barred as WP:RS. Castncoot ( talk) 05:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
OK, now it's reliably sourced, with an ISBN number. Thanks to User:Irehdna for pointing this out. Castncoot ( talk) 05:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks also to User:Tinton5 for appropriately making the correct move from "Bombay, NJ" to "Bombay, Jersey City". That's the other point that User:RegentsPark appears to be missing. Castncoot ( talk) 05:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Castncoot, could you please give the exact text from the source that mentions Little Bombay that clarifies where the boundaries of this neighborhood are? Thanks. -- regentspark ( comment) 20:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
In response to your comment about wikibreaks, depending on the user's preferences, they may receive an email every time someone edits their talk page. Regardless, we can't keep the AfD open just to wait for someone to return from wikibreak. The creator does not own the article. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 01:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Mergeto India Square, does not require separate article. Djflem ( talk) 20:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Unlike British neighborhoods, many U.S. neighborhoods, especially within major cities, do not in fact have boundaries. New York City is a prime example of that. One might say they're in either Forest Hills or in Rego Park in Queens, and they wouldn't necessarily be wrong either way. One might also say they're in Kips Bay or in Rose Hill in Manhattan, and they wouldn't necessarily be wrong either way. But note that each of these has a separate Wikipedia page. In the U.S., unincorporated neighborhoods in major cities are often (though not always) loosely and culturally defined. The salient point for Wikipedia is notability. The source succinctly and reliably states that Little India ( India Square) lies within the Jersey City neighborhood of Little Bombay. In other words, India Square is a micro-neighborhood within the macro-neighborhood of Bombay, Jersey City, which Wikipage is only two months old and needs time to develop, but in fact was vetted, reviewed, and even moved from Bombay, New Jersey to Bombay, Jersey City. Also note that the West Village is a micro-neighborhood within the macro-neighborhood of Greenwich Village, both in turn within Manhattan, but neither the West Village nor Greenwich Village has clearly defined boundaries - they are more loosely and culturally defined. Castncoot ( talk) 22:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
By the way User:Irehdna, is it valid to say that your iVote is Keep? Castncoot ( talk) 22:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Speaking of which, all iVotes will need to take into consideration the newly sourced page. Castncoot ( talk) 23:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
{{ping}Castncoot}}, it would be helpful if you would provide the exact quote from the source so that we can make an informed judgement. For your Manhattan examples above, we have plenty of sources while there does seem to be a paucity of sources for Little Bombay (and none, if I may say, for Bombay) so a full quotation would be helpful. Thanks. -- regentspark ( comment) 23:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

If one prefers a merge to Marion Section instead of India Square would be more appropriate since the area includes the parts of the Journal Square district just north of the square itself and most of the area west of it, including Newark Avenue. Djflem ( talk) 05:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I think a reference to "Little Bombay" is probably ok since a google search [12] throws up articles that use that term synonymously with India Square, even though none qualify as RS (and I still haven't seen the actual text from the Moon guide). However, Bombay seems totally egregious and made up to me and should not appear anywhere on Wikipedia. At best, a line in India Square along the lines of sometimes called "Little India" or "Little Bombay" may be appropriate. -- regentspark ( comment) 13:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
This is where topic experience is critical, User:RegentsPark. The *fact* is that, as User:Irehdna pointed out, India Square lies within Bombay/New Bombay/Little Bombay. To complicate things further, as User:Djflem has validly pointed out, the loosely defined Bombay neighborhood has now also sprawled over into the Marion Section of Jersey City as well. So RegentsPark's proposal is not acceptable (because it's now factually incorrect), even if it may have had validity as recently as ten years ago. India Square connotes the commercial center of Bombay/New Bombay/Little Bombay, which in turn represents more of a cultural zone encompassing both India Square and the Journal Square areas. We cannot be telling Wikipedia readers that 2+2=5. I believe that the correct solution here is to develop this article properly to reflect these intricacies as well as vagaries. The way I see it, deleting an article is simply a copout as a way to avoid necessary work. Castncoot ( talk) 01:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Perhaps that's true, but I haven't seen a single source which supports that assertion, and undefined neighborhoods are held to the WP:GNG standard per WP:GEOLAND. In the absence of any reliable sources this is a clear delete or merge. SportingFlyer talk 04:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Exactly. @ Castncoot: you need to find reliable sources for your assertions otherwise we, i.e., Wikipedia, will be creating new neighborhoods out of nothing (once again, we are not a crowd sourced site). Reliable sourcing is a core policy for a very good reason and no sources for Bombay exist. Little Bombay does seem to be used as an alternative name for India Square, though you still haven't provided the text of that source, so that can be stated in the India Square article. But creating an article on Bombay, New Jersey (or Jersey City) merely on the basis of "topic experience" is not acceptable. -- regentspark ( comment) 22:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
What Djflem is pointing out is that this article should be redirected to India Square or Marion Section, of which India Square is part with the proper citation in the article as opposed to creating new articles such a Koreatown, Palisades and Koreatown, Fort Lee, which give a name that is not really in use to communities large concentrations of an ethnic group, but rather use existing names and article and expand on those. That's the work. Djflem ( talk) 22:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
OK User:Djflem, I can agree to merging this article into Marion Section. Castncoot ( talk) 00:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply
---> Done. Castncoot ( talk) 05:50, 19 July 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 15:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

South Carolina gubernatorial election, 2022

South Carolina gubernatorial election, 2022 (  | 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:TOOSOON article about a state gubernatorial election that's more than four years away as of today -- there's literally nothing of substance to say about this yet except that it's going to happen, and the only source being cited here is an unreliable blog entry about the incumbent governor predicting that he'll serve for at least ten years, not reliable or notability-supporting media coverage of the 2022 election as a thing that anybody's paying attention to yet. No prejudice against recreation in 2021 or 2022 when things are actually happening for an article to talk about, but there's simply no reason or need for this to already exist today. Bearcat ( talk) 13:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
And even then, the incumbent could still resign or die, or choose not to run again sometime in the next four years, or try to run again in 2022 but lose the primary. So even if he wins this fall, that still doesn't constitute a guarantee that he'll actually still be the Republican candidate in 2022. Bearcat ( talk) 15:32, 15 July 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 15:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Michaelwood services

Michaelwood 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)

Simple trivia, primary sources only. -- DexterPointy ( talk) 13:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 18:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • ROADOUTCOMES is an essay, not policy. We should not automatically assume that because something is "generally notable" in an essay topic that it is inherently notable in Wikipedia policy. Who also made the decision that service areas in Britain (but no other country) were generally notable? If it was on the basis of an outcome of a mass AfD (which was always going to end up as a trainwreck) then the fallback should consider reliable sources if there are any. Shopping centres covering a larger area and a greater number of facilities aren't always notable and I don't see why smaller services areas should have a higher status. Ajf773 ( talk) 22:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT (does not fail WP:NOTGUIDE, though.) Of the AfDs cited above as precedent, one is from 2006 when notability was different, and the other was a trainwreck, so precedent isn't clear. Roadoutcomes mentions the UK is different than the rest of the world, but again, it's not policy - this one fails WP:GNG at the moment and I can't understand why you'd have a keep for the UK. SportingFlyer talk 04:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Also note the ROADOUTCOMES was added here, based on the result of the Norton Canes services AfD, and seems to have sailed by for awhile: 16:01, September 6, 2009‎ Jeni (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,859 bytes) (+157)‎ . . (Added per WP:Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination) and previous AfDs. I have no issues discussing if this is considered a controversial addition. (WP:BRD)) (undo | thank) SportingFlyer talk 04:26, 19 July 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 per WP:SNOW. While there are only a few flakes of snow here, it's fairly clear that the notability just isn't here and waiting out the remaining days would only bring the same result. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Fire and Spice

Fire and Spice (  | 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 book does not meet notability criteria. There is very little third-party coverage and the article was created by a user found to be a sockpuppet. Manzarene ( talk) 12:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:50, 18 July 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 15:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

We R Friends

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

Non-notable film, no coverage or significant reviews. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:59, 14 July 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) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Bowral High School

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

This article does not cite sources and heavily relies on (what appears to be) original research. Therefore, I believe it does not meet the Wikipedia standards. ❂ string DTD❂ 10:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notable school in Bowral. There are two major schools: Bowral Public School (K-6) and Bowral High School (7-12). Here's a listing from Highland NSW official website [13] AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a high school. No reason to think that with local and hard copy searches sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such articles. Just Chilling ( talk) 18:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Run of the mill small town high school. The above editors seem unaware that secondary schools are no longer considered automatically notable following a large scale RFC: I'd encourage them to re-read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Nick-D ( talk) 23:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Trove news archive about new high school:

  • Dated 1928 back when it was still Bowral Intermediate High School [18]
  • Visit by Lord Chelmsford in 1921 to the Bowral District School [19]
  • 1925 plans to erect new high school [20]
  • 1927 construction plans [21]
  • 1928 enlargement of high school site [22]
  • 1929 foundation stone scheduled [23] laid [24] picture [25]
  • 1929 building in progress [26]
  • 1929 cost of high school $25,000 and description of building [27]
  • 1930 announcement that school has been classified raised to second class [28]
  • 1930 Official opening news article [29] [30] [31]
  • 1930 Speech Day and progress report by headmaster on class enrollment figures, erection of tennis courts, successes on the leaving exams - this is fairly significant coverage near the founding date of the facility [32]
  • 1930 Captains and Prefects named [33], Sports records created for school [34], 1931 scholarships for graduates [35]
  • 1935 PCA meeting for more courses (lists some courses that were present back in the days) [36]
  • 1935 death of headmaster Cowie [37]
  • 1937 Headmaster AD Watson (2nd headmaster of school) leaves [38]

The list goes on through other years but the stuff around 1930 is most pertinent as significant coverage by news sources. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 03:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Some nim-come-poop (not directed at anyone in particular) is probably going to come along and say but, but, but, that's all local coverage and there's nothing special about this place! and to that I challenge them to take a random sample of 50 articles from each of these categories: Category:Public high schools in California, Category:Cities in Florida, and Category:Prisons in Texas. How many of them are run-of-the-mill subjects that just barely meet WP:GNG (or, perhaps in you opinion, don't meet WP:GNG at all)? WP:OTHERSTUFF? Read over that argument closely before you cite it. The argument here isn't that one, two, ten, or even one hundred articles exist, the point is three quarters or more of Wikipedia content exists. If we nuke all of it, it won't just be Wikipedians noticing and talking about the mass removal of pages about little towns, moderately sized cities, schools, hospitals, etc. I point back to WP:NOTPAPER, and also to WP:IAR. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 11:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
For a "small town high school", it sure has significant coverage in multiple newspapers: Sydney Morning Herald, The Southern Mail (Bowral), The Robertson Advocate, The Scrutineer and Berrima District Press, The Labor Daily AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:38, 18 July 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 15:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Mundhum Trek

Mundhum Trek (  | 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 references, no evidence of notability, WP:BEFORE doesn't turn up anything Melcous ( talk) 10:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 12:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 13:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 13:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No refs offered or that I could find (in English) to support existence, let alone notability. It is not clear what this is meant to be, either. Public parkland? A marked trail? Someone's idea of a good hiking route? Happy to revisit if reliable sources can be found in Nepali or English. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 16:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:42, 18 July 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. Nomination withdrawn. Additional context helped clear up lack of results. ( non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 20:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Solo 1954/Piano Solo

Solo 1954/Piano Solo (  | 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:NALBUM. No indication in the course of searching that the album was notable on its own merit. WP:NOTINHERITED Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 21:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 02:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 02:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Clearly an article in need of expansion beyond a track list, not least to take account of its multiple editions (I have this as GNP9008, licensed from Vogue by GNP Crescendo in 1972 and unhelpfully entitled just "Thelonious Monk"). But noting especially the New Yorker item identified by Hobbes Goodyear ("Thelonious Monk’s first and, to my ears, greatest solo piano session"), I think there is enough for notability. AllyD ( talk) 11:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Withdrawing as keep. Appreciate the additional context from those more familiar with the subject. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 20:32, 15 July 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. Randykitty ( talk) 03:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Other Goddess Circle

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

Unable to find sufficient independent, secondary sources to establish notability under WP:NORG Seraphim System ( talk) 20:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ( talk) 20:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ( talk) 20:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ( talk) 20:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ( talk) 20:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ( talk) 20:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - With Goddess Circle. Not enough original, English language sources to justify its own page, and most of the content there is original research or unsourced. Bangabandhu ( talk) 16:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - three editors have made comments - under no circumstance should an afd of this type be closed with so few comments - a case of where even more time has to be allowed for comment - inadequate depth of comment it is not a SNOW and thus should be kept open until further comments arrive JarrahTree 00:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:NORG. The only source not connected with the subject is a primary document. Curdle ( talk) 14:44, 18 July 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. As with many school AfDs, the arguments come down to, Lack of independent sources vs, But we keep schools. It's also possible we're looking at a biased sampling of sources because Indian schools tend to not have as much on-line coverage as US schools. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

National English School, Kolkata

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

I personally am unable to decipher what is going on with this page...is it about National English School or abt Mangalam Vidya Niketan. That being said none of the subjects have any coverage in reliable sources  —  F R  + 14:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 15:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 15:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I've deleted the text pertaining to Mangalam Vidya Niketan and restored a stub for the school. That is a completely different school and some editors had hijacked the article. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep and develop The article now refers to the secondary school group as well as a teaching college. I've found one secondary article about the college establishment so far. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Here's a random article about a fight at the school. [39] AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. Just Chilling ( talk) 14:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
So Just Chilling, you want to make a point that you have more "experience" in this subject area than a person who lives in Calcutta itself ? Just FYI, all major dallies be it Bengali, English, etc native to this metropolitan region, have a strong presence on the internet itself. The only two sources found up-till now lack even the depth needed for a decent DYK criteria article. The first from Times of India Nie reads like a press release, the second is MILL coverage about two kids getting into fight that turned ugly. If you are such a firm believer in with enough research, sources can invariably be found, I ask you to get your hands dirty and instead of passing comments on my inability to do a through WP:BEFORE , try and find some of those excellent source you have mentioned above. If you however cannot I would request you to refactor your comment to reflect the same Thanks. —  F R  + 18:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
....even though the article cannot even pass the lower threshold of WP:GNG ? Please read this page [ [40]] as a explanation of why your logic is flawed. —  F R  + 02:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. About 90% of the time even in the most recent year we have kept verifiable high schools, on the basis that they form a reasonable exception-and the purpose for making them an exception is not just thatthey usually can be sourced with enough effort, and make suitable articles for beginners, but even more important, to avoid the potential thousands of debates such as this, which will , based on experience, come out essentially random. There's avirtue in consistency; there's a virtue in not making decisions that have no basis except the people who happen to show up for the discussion and how much effort they want to devote to the argument. (and when the argument, as here, seems to rely on personal knowledge that it is or is not important in its community, that's all the mroe reason. The claim that a person from the city doesn't think them notable and should therefore have the last word can be used to keep or delete almost anything.--its a classic IDONTLIKEIT/IDOLIKEIT argument. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable, does not meet GNG. Dearth of independent sources. Curdle ( talk) 07:25, 22 July 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 15:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Five Starcle Men

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

does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 ( talk) 05:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 13:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 13:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

This band was influential in the underground experimental music scene of the 1990s. They have over 27,000 downloads on the Internet Archive and many devoted fans: https://archive.org/details/lf074mp3 It is a mistake to remove this page. Wikipedia needs to hold space for bands with an alternative media presence outside mainstream distribution and publishing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valis911 ( talk • contribs) 21:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The sources in the article are cack, and there seems to be nothing better out there. -- Michig ( talk) 10:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. The Village Voice is the one decent source in the article, but it mentions the band only briefly as part of a wider article about bands and teen suicide. "Wikipedia needs to hold space for bands with an alternative media presence outside mainstream distribution and publishing" – only if the bands in question pass the notability and verifiability guidelines of WP:GNG and WP:V, Valis911. Richard3120 ( talk) 16:52, 20 July 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 15:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Sunesis Pharmaceuticals

Sunesis Pharmaceuticals (  | 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:NCORP. Looking at ghits, especially the news section, we see that most of the items listed as PR pieces, press release content and churnalism. If this company has failed to generate significant coverage in the past 20 years, we can assume that they are non notable. 2Joules ( talk) 03:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Unstruck nomination text, per WP:G5, since AfD initiated before sock block. - The Gnome ( talk) 05:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The Gnome, FreeatlastChitchat was blocked by NeilN on 6 March 2018, long before this page was created. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 12:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Are we not going with the date the nominator ("2Joules") was blocked? Moreover, if we strike off the nominator's whole text, then this means the AfD would be null and void and should be closed down immediately. - The Gnome ( talk) 12:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose — I am one of the editors who has contributed to the article. Of the 7 citations currently supporting the article, only one is a press release / self-published; the remaining 6 are from established news outlets, mostly newspapers, with one being from Science Translational Medicine. GHits are not a measure of notability any longer, considering the vast content in Internet Archive and Newspapers.com, neither of which are touched by Google. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 04:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ User:Ceyockey This mention in newspapers.com is just a trivial passing mention, so is this one. Then there are the quarterly financial reports used as sources. The source you mention from Science Translational Medicine is a blog. They explicitly state on the top that the blog is in no way affiliated with the magazine and does not have any peer review etc. They call it editorially independent. So it is not part of the magazine. With such unreliable sourcing, this should have been deleted ages ago. 2Joules ( talk) 08:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Striking off commentary by confirmed sockpuppet. - The Gnome ( talk) 05:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ User:2Joules — As with previous articles I've contributed to and which were ultimately deleted, I won't oppose if the consensus is delete. In regard to the blog posting, blog postings by notable individuals (i.e. who have articles on Wikipedia) are certainly reliable sources; the author just had not been linked before, now linked. Trivial mentions - I'll have to review these again to see if your evaluation aligns with my interpretation. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 01:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ User:CAPTAIN RAJU — I REALLY take issue with this being described as "promotional". There is no content which attempts to aggrandize or hype the firm. -- User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I presume, Ceyockey, you're addressing me rather than User:CAPTAIN RAJU. Briefly, the label " promotional" is based on the use of weaselly words and phrases in the contested article such as: "focused on"; "this new opportunity"; "tethering", without explanation (the source cited does not explain, while the DCC article itself is unsatisfactory, so the user is left staring at just an impressive sounding word); etc. Plus, this being an article indirectly about scientific subjects ( chemistry, biology), we need explanations for the terms used, otherwise, again, the user is left just staring at impressive wordage. For example, "...helping leukemia patients with a C481S mutation". What's "C4815"? And what it means to be a mutation of it? Admittedly, the sum does not constitute something highly promotional, but when it comes to articles about corporations, we must be vigilant. In any case, the bigger problem here is lack of notability; weasels can be run out. - The Gnome ( talk) 05:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
sorry for the mis-direction, @ The Gnome. I don't think I added any of the promotional-signals, and all of these can be addressed. The C4815 thing ... that bothered me too; drugs are now targeting specific mutations, but that info doesn't belong in the company article, but in the drug article. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 03:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, the latter in particular. The sources cited by the article are all either trivial mentions, press releases, minor list articles (such as the Wisconsin State Journal citation), etc. None these pass the newly-strengthened NCORP guideline for notability or CORPDEPTH. Furthermore, neither the sources cited nor the article itself make a credible claim to significance for the company, which seems to be a run-of-the-mill pharmaceutical company with doubtful encyclopedic notability.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 17:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment — @ User:SamHolt6 noted the WP:CORPDEPTH, which I'd not been familiar with prior to this; it provides a guide to source evaluation, which did not exist before. As I've been defending the article, I thought it incumbent upon me to do the WP:CORPDEPTH source analysis, which appears below. I'd be interested in how you feel my interpretation of sources matches your interpretations. I do agree that "2" as the count of supporting pass citations is insufficient to support a keep for the current state of the article. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
GenEngNews article Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN This is less about the company and more about a marketing submission for one of their products.
article about 'coverage' in Street Insider Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN This is a note about what I think is an investment bank and their starting to track performance of the company.
blog post at Science Translational Medicine Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY This blog posting is by a notable person and appears in association with a reputable journal publisher, though independent.
"Quest for the Cure" book citation Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN One sentence related to the founding of the company.
listing in Wisconsin State Journal Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Very brief note about an impending initial public offering
listing in Austin American-Statesman Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Very brief note about an impending initial public offering
Financial Results press release Green tickY Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN impossible to determine whether this is reliable, as self-published and not subject to penalty if false.
listing in News Journal Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Very brief note about a 4th quarter loss
article in Seeking Alpha following release of 2017 financial results Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY This source has not been fully utilized in the article.
article in Ukiah Daily Journal (AP piece) Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Collaborations between companies are not intrinsically significant, unless they yield significant outcomes and this is a note on the begining of a collab, which might yield nothing.
GenomeWeb "People In The News" Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN noting an award given to Wells, with mention of his founding of Sunesis
Total qualifying sources 2 There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 14 July 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. Randykitty ( talk) 03:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Childhood Cancer Research Group

Childhood Cancer Research Group (  | 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 subdivision of an academic department is not notable. Natureium ( talk) 17:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 18:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
That's a fun fact, but this isn't a person. By that criteria, almost any academic department would probably be notable enough, which is not the case. We probably don't want tens of thousands of articles on academic divisions and working groups. Natureium ( talk) 20:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply
handwavy "plenty of refs" is persuasive. You need to show them, and show that they are independent, and with significant discussion. See WP:NCORP Jytdog ( talk) 20:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Per WP:NCORP, sources must be independent. Aearches in google scholar are most likely turn up affiliations of authors, not independent sources with significant discussion about the organization. A simply invalid !vote. Jytdog ( talk) 20:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Why are you sticking to google scholar? A simple news search demonstrates plenty of independent sources, some even critical, about the subject. Where are the refs? ( talk) 13:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
You need to actually show the refs. Jytdog ( talk) 20:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Saying you will add refs later is not sufficient to keep an article. Jytdog ( talk) 20:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

*Delete This is basically an advert. I also see COI concerns. 2Joules ( talk) 18:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 ( talk) 15:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 14 July 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 15:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

You'll Never Beat the Irish

You'll Never Beat the Irish (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am nominating the following which are all related to the above:
A Sense of Freedom (album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Across the Broad Atlantic (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As Gaeilge (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Belt of the Celts (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Irish to the Core (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Let the People Sing (album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Profile (Wolfe Tones album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sing Out for Ireland (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spirit of the Nation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Foggy Dew (album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Troubles (Wolfe Tones album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
'Till Ireland a Nation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Same rationale for deletion. Please let me know if I need to do anything else. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar ( talk) 17:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for all of them. probably promotional or fan pages. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep All and improve each through the normal editing process, or assess individually. This massive group nomination shows a deficient WP:BEFORE search for each individual album and for the group collectively. The nominator also missed WP:NEXIST, which states that the current absence of sources in an article is not proof that sources do not exist at all, and that editors should search for them and add them going forward. Of the 13 albums in the nomination, 8 have reviews at AllMusic which can be found easily. The following do not have AllMusic reviews: You'll Never Beat the Irish, As Gaeilge, The Foggy Dew (album), The Troubles (Wolfe Tones album), and 'Till Ireland a Nation. Of that group, The Troubles (Wolfe Tones album) received one possibly useful review that I could find ( [41]), and I could find nothing for the other four. Those five albums could be subjected to this AfD process individually but that is not a good reason to condemn the band's entire discography through this collective nomination. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 18:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all. Per Doomsdayer520, I don't see that WP:BEFORE has been met here. Even if it were found that some individual subjects do not meet WP:NALBUM (to the extent that the content was to be deleted), some of the titles themselves would seem appropriate to at least retain as a redirect (to the extent that the titles would seem appropriate to keep). If we get to that point, The Wolfe Tones discography would seem a viable target. Otherwise, the individual articles should be individually assessed. And, at quick glance, per Doomsdayer520, at least some of the albums listed have been the subject of non-trivial reviews/coverage. Short of evidence of WP:BEFORE on each of them, I don't see how I could support the "delete them all" recommendation. (Separately, I would note that all of these articles were created by the same [now] blocked user. And nominated shortly after that user was blocked. I'm not saying its the case here, and while it sometimes seem like it perhaps should be, "the author is a dick" is not a valid AfD rationale.) Guliolopez ( talk) 20:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 14 July 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. The first two "keep"s don't make much sense. Sandstein 15:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Murder of Mehwish Arshad

Murder of Mehwish Arshad (  | 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:NOTNEWS. This is a recent event that is unlikely to endure. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Why else I would create this if it wasn't notable enough. And I dont think so it fails Wikipedia notability issue. And this is certainly not an ordinary incident. It has a sufficient coverage to be included in the wikipedia. Nauriya Lets Talk 19:14 30 June 2018 (UTC).
I'm sure as the creator you think it's notable enough but this is not about your personal opinion but notability guidelines. For an event to be notable it has to have significant non routine coverage over a period of time. All the sources date from a period of a few days as one would expect of any murder. The last source you have added dates from 10 days ago. This suggests that it has no long lasting notability. There are thousands of murders reported every day we only create articles about notable events. This murder is a tragedy but as it says in WP:NEVENT Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Dom from Paris ( talk) 16:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 08:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Please be clearer about how this helps show that the subject meets NEVENT. Dom from Paris ( talk) 07:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Sad story, but doesn't look like it meets notability requirements at WP:CRIME. Neither the victim nor the perpetrator were notable in their own rights, nor was the crime particularly noteworthy. Also, given that the trial hasn't even taken place and the perpetrator is living and therefore falls under BLP guidelines, the note in WP:CRIME certainly applies: "Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." If this crime turns out to have enduring significance, it may need an article at some point, but at this point it is WP:TOOSOON to assume it will be anything other than an unfortunate criminal event. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 06:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:RAPID. Fairly wide international coverage for a murder in Pakistan. The question as this point is whether such coverage will be LASTING and SUSTAINED - however we can not evaluate this at this without a crystal ball at this point, hence RAPID. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't think RAPID applies here as it says delay for a few days after the event has taken place. This event happened more than a month ago so it is no longer breaking news. NEVENT clearly states that routine events such as crimes are usually not notable unless something further gives them enduring notability. This murder took place over a month ago and no other sources have been added beyond the initial reporting of the crime. Dom from Paris ( talk) 23:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
There are a number of features to this murder that make it notable (e.g. it being filmed). Most murders in Pakistan receive scant local coverage. This one has been receiving international coverage for a few news cycles - for some time after the event. With the coverage so far. There is enough coverage for notability - the question is whether it will be SUSTAINED. Icewhiz ( talk) 02:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
As I said in my reply to the article creator all the sources date from a few days as one would expect from a murder and then dry up. The last one was dated from nearly 3 weeks ago. The only possibly notable element was the fact this was filmed but beyond the voyeuristic element of this murder having been posted on the web and the novelty factor for a source to be able to post actual images of the crime there are no other reasons why this murder got coverage and as all the sources are single reports about the event I cannot see the proof that this was reported over more than 1 news cycle. As per NEVENT it doesn't matter if events were widely reported at the time it is the sustainability that matters. Half of the sources are not signed and come from either "web desk" or "news desk" or some such, and one is signed by a "trainee social media journalist". If there were follow up in depth reports from the same sources this may point to notability but there are none. Dom from Paris ( talk) 06:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Those who cite RAPID tend to ignore the entirety of our notability guidelines for events and their argument falls apart when you analyze it. Saying LASTING cannot be evaluated is another way of telling the closer there is ‘’no’’ lasting impact. Hence, it was too soon to create this article, as the other half of RAPID (“don’t ‘’rush’’ to create articles”) explicitly describes. The notability guidelines also warns us violent crimes are excellent for the media, but the encyclopedia has different criteria we follow with much higher standards for inclusion. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 01:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete does not meet WP:NCRIME & WP:NOTNEWS as per K.e.coffman. All the news covers the actual event intensively for a few days, before apparently ceasing completely by 20th June. No reports of protests or laws changing or regulations being made, or politicians saying anything apart from the usual platitudes. Curdle ( talk) 15:02, 18 July 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. Sandstein 15:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Tapire-iauara

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

Does not appear to meet notability requirements, lacks significant RS coverage. – dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This isn't the first one of these cryptid stubs at AFD, and I generally approach them – fairly or not – with the initial assumption that they will be contrived, pseudoscientific dreck backed up by fringe sources, if anything at all. To my surprise, this appears to be a legitimate folklore topic. The best source is Man, Fishes, and the Amazon, which dedicated a couple of pages to the creature's mythology and folklore. But it does receive attention in other works as well, including an admittedly brief treatment by Jacques Yves Cousteau in Jacques Cousteau's Amazon Journey. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 19:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Apparently the folklore is also mentioned in The Enchanted Amazon Rainforest. [2] It does appear to be actual folklore, but I'm not completely sure there's enough material to justify an article yet. You said there are a couple of pages in Man, Fishes, and the Amazon? -- tronvillain ( talk) 16:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The above are what I can find as well. Not able to look into that book though, so not sure if it's a sufficientlty extensive treatment / provides any material? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 18:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/does-the-blue-wave-start-in-jersey/2018/07/15/db44a0b2-86e4-11e8-8f6c-46cb43e3f306_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.057e31302f61
  2. ^ Smith, Nigel J. H. (1996). The Enchanted Amazon Rain Forest: Stories from a Vanishing World. University Press of Florida. ISBN  978-0-8130-1377-0.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I have added a line, a footnote, and a few sources, and we would likely be able to expand this if someone speaking Portuguese would have a closer look. I don't think we should expect this getting expanded to a potential DYK candidate any time soon, on the other hand I don't see how the encyclopædia is better off by tossing these sourceable stubs out. Paper encyclopædias of my youth and of our forefathers brimmed with these short entries. Sam Sailor 08:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - in light of the new additions notability may have been established and it seems worth giving this some more opportunity. -- tronvillain ( talk) 13:06, 21 July 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 15:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

TriYoga

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

Article is was a linkfarm until I deleted the links here [43], but still lacks decent sources, appears to be promotional in nature, and fails WP:GNG. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 21:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:46, 14 July 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 Ealing#Religion. Sandstein 15:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Ealing Liberal Synagogue

Ealing Liberal Synagogue (  | 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 significant coverage, the one source listed is simply a directory of synagogues addresses. nonon notable Amisom ( talk) 07:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Ealing#Religion, as there isn't actually much detail there (in the current article) - the key couple of lines are already on the redirect target. A WP:BEFORE check didn't come up with anything that provided Sig CoV, there were a few lines in a couple of jewish year books, and a university challenge winner went there, but that seemed to be it. Synagogues fall under WP:NCHURCH which indicates that at least WP:GNG must be met, and potentially WP:NCORP - and neither is, as far as i can tell. Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 13:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 13:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 13:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 13:44, 14 July 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 15:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Hoda Kobeissi

Hoda Kobeissi (  | 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 reality show contestant. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or any other guideline. St Anselm ( talk) 06:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. St Anselm ( talk) 10:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:08, 18 July 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. Basically per A7; can be recreated if there are sources making it notable. For posterity, the entire unsourced content by NeonMerlin was: "Nekojishi is a Taiwanese furry visual novel where the male player character must choose one of three male felid love interests: Lin Hu, a tiger; Shu Chi, a leopard; or Likulau, a ghost clouded leopard.". Sandstein 15:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Nekojishi

Nekojishi (  | 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. Can't find any RS coverage on google. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - bluntly speaking, I was reticent to do any great research on this while on an open router, since I felt explanations would be needed. That said, there did seem to be quite a lot of potentially reliable coverage (in the sense that not all sources writing about it were unreliable). There was also quite a lot of foreign texts that google is not great at translating, so a native speaker might have more luck. Finally, which do we think applies - WP:NBOOK or WP:NGAME? Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Nosebagbear:- I guess NGAME? 'Visual novels' are apparently a video game genre. All I could fine were facebook, wikia, and similar quality sources. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete One-sentence stub that doesn't even claim, much less demonstrate, notability. No prejudice against an article that meets our inclusion criteria being created on this subject if some reliable coverage can be located, or withdrawing this !vote if someone actually fixes the article in the interim, but I see no reason why this shouldn't go the way of my original Utsunomiya Yoritsuna draft. I'm also a bit concerned that when the page was originally PRODded, the PROD was reverted with an apparently nonsense edit summary. @ NeonMerlin: It's been six days -- why have you not gotten around to giving the page any magic love yet? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
That entire article is 3 paragraphs, and can hardly be considered 'significant coverage.' It's more of a blog post/brief mention. Further, is 'hardcore gamer' a RS? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Saying it "doesn't apply to novels or games" seems questionable when it explicitly covers "web content". Whether "web content" covers downloadable Steam games is an open question as far as I can tell, but it definitely covers at least some novels and games that exist only on some guy's website, which is presumably why it doesn't explicitly exclude "novels and games". Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 04:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Also, I'm inclined to agree with ECoV in questioning the reliability of the source: an earlier article on the same topic, by the same author for the same publication, included the bizarre claim that the game brings together Taiwanese elements and aboriginal culture (!? does he mean Australian aboriginal? if he meant Taiwanese aboriginal, that would be redundant...) and appears to have sloppily conflated new Taiwan dollars with USD, since 1,000,000 USD to crowdfund a non-animated visual novel is a phenomenal amount and would raise questions of scamming, while 1,000,000 TWD is not all that impressive despite the language the article used. (Granted, FlyingV.cc might measure things in USD, and the game might be a visual extravaganza of a gaming experience that really did cost that much to make, but...) Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
BTdubs, the best source I could find discussing the game was this, but appears to be more about Taiwanese culture and history in general, with the reporter taking with credulity everything his interviewees said with regard to the content of the game since the game was not apparently out yet. We can't just say the game incorporates elements of Taiwanese aboriginal mythology (as opposed to being "inspired by" it, which usually means there is little to no relation) just because the game's producers said so, since (even per the report in question) said producers knew nothing about said mythology prior to doing research for the game. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:19, 21 July 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. clpo13( talk) 18:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Knee splitter

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

This is likely a hoax. Source is not trustworthy. There is not a single scholarly or historical source that mentions this device. It is similar to the " Spanish Tickler" which had similar sources and ended up being one of the longest lasting Wikipedia hoaxes. BananaBaron ( talk) 03:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ BananaBaron: Sure, provided that reliable sources can be found to identify them as hoaxes (for example see iron maiden). I suspect that it would be better, however, to include both historical and ahistorical ones in separate lists on the same article to help spread explicitly identified good information and to keep the incorrect ones from being added to the historical ones. Spanish tickler, btw, appears to be another example for which the Museo di tortura may be responsible ( 1996..., ping Premeditated Chaos, Fayenatic london) ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 06:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
This is such a bizarre coincidence. I was reading The Better Angels of Our Nature last week, and of all things, it mentioned the Spanish Tickler - with, interestingly, an actual citation to a book older than the article. Unfortunately the book it referenced, Inquisition: A Bilingual Guide To The Exhibition Of Torture Instruments From The Middle Ages To The Industrial Age, wasn't available as an e-book, so I had to suck it up and order the actual book. Shipping is slow so the ETA isn't until late July-early August, but long story short I can check it once I get it for any information about the knee splitter. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Addendum: having a look at the Inquisition book, it looks like it may have been published by one of those torture museums that the www.documentazione.info source above debunks. The rabbit hole just gets deeper. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Yup -- from the cover it's the book of (what is now) the museum's 1983-1987 touring exhibition. [45]. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 08:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
What a waste of $15 >:C ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 07:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 07:43, 15 July 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. The image appears to be of scold's bridles, per [46]. clpo13( talk) 18:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Mask of infamy

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

This is likely a hoax. Source is not trustworthy. There is not a single scholarly or historical source that mentions this device. It is similar to the " Spanish Tickler" which had similar sources and ended up being one of the longest lasting Wikipedia hoaxes. BananaBaron ( talk) 03:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. Insufficient coverage in RS. Catrìona ( talk) 20:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 07:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 07:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
-- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 17:59, 15 July 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 15:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Tianjin Xinwen Guangbo

Tianjin Xinwen Guangbo (  | 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 source that can prove notability of this radio station B dash ( talk) 02:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. We keep radio stations. Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Broadcast_media and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 08:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete actually, a full reading is not "we keep radio stations". It is "we keep radio stations if they can be demonstrated to be notable". And even the full existence is not so demonstrated here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Eastmain is incorrect about how NMEDIA works — we do not routinely keep every article that merely claims that its topic exists as a radio station, but rather radio stations have to meet all four of four conditions to get articles: (1) they originate at least a portion of their own programming schedule in their own studios rather than existing purely as a rebroadcaster of another service, (2) they are licensed by the relevant regulatory authority rather than operating as a Part 15 or pirate station, (3) they are actually on the air and not just an unlaunched construction permit that exists only on paper, and (4) all three of those facts are reliably sourceable. We've had a lot of hoax articles created over the years about radio stations that didn't really exist, or that falsely claimed a license they didn't have or programming they didn't produce — so the notability test for a radio station is not just "the article says it exists", but "the article can be properly sourced as meeting all of the conditions for the notability of a radio station". And this is not properly sourced as meeting any of them. NMEDIA most certainly does not exempt a media outlet from having to be properly referenced to be considered notable. Bearcat ( talk) 18:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fundamentally limited in my BEFORE check by language difficulties, but the following two sources might be helpful to someone who can better use some keywords to seek the info they need. Outline of Tianjin News Communication History & China Radio and Television Yearbook. There aren't any references by name (in the bit I've seen) to let me confidently say that the existence/licenses mentioned actually belong to this specific radio station. Lots of programming mentioned but even less that gives tangential connection. Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:02, 20 July 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. I am closing this early per WP:SNOW.
I can understand the argument for deletion, as it's an argument I've sympathized with in the past. To summarize it, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this means that there are some topics which may be "newsworthy" but not "encyclopedia-worthy". A topic is not necessarily suitable for a standalone article even if it has received significant coverage in a lot of reliable newspapers (the WP:N lead states that an article must both meet WP:GNG and not be excluded by WP:NOT). Instead, to determine encyclopedic notability, we look at things like lasting significance and persistence of coverage.
However, with that being said, these are not things that we can necessarily determine soon after an event takes place. There is a broad consensus here that given the extent and breadth of the coverage about this topic, it is reasonable to keep this article and allow it to develop for the time being. Many editors also argued that the extent and breadth of the coverage indicates that it is more than merely newsworthy, and even those who sympathize with the deletion argument have suggested valid alternatives to deletion, such as merging to Protests against Donald Trump or rewriting the article so that it is more about the events/protests in which the balloon was flown.
For these reasons, I believe that at this time, there is no real chance that this discussion will result in any other outcome besides "keep". For the same reasons, I do not recommend starting something like a merge discussion in the weeks immediately after this discussion is closed. Respectfully, Mz7 ( talk) 01:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Donald Trump baby balloon

Donald Trump baby balloon (  | 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 WP:NOTNEWS flash-in-the-pan. Ridiculous article about a snippet in time. No encyclopedic value whatsoever. Fails WP:GNG over the long-term and is a WP:1E. Suggest Another Believer be trouted for creating it, he knows better. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTFoRUM
There are trouting boundaries. Nobody should be trouted for trouting someone who suggested someone be trouted. That would be over the line. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I draw the boundary in a different place. Some people say "never tweet", which is probably good advice. My personal policy is "never trout". Lepricavark ( talk) 03:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
In the case of the trouter who trouted the trout suggester, I opted for goating. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I can't believe it. You just goated me! The cheek! :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Lepricavark, I must agree. Trouting is not very nice. Of course, speaking ill of trouting is troutable. We must tread lightly, my friend. Let's hope this goes unnoticed. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Not to worry. I am sure that a Trump-related AfD will attract very little attention. Lepricavark ( talk) 04:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Changed to speedy keep as 1E no longer can apply so there is no logic in keeping this open. Anything else should be discussed on the article talk page. -- Fæ ( talk) 18:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
(1) WP:1E may no longer apply, however, that doesn't remove the valid observation of WP:GNG (long-term notability is key for an encyclopedia) as well as WP:NOTNEWS - both of which have been noted by other editors !voting delete in this AfD. (2) Speedy keep is not appropriate, either, as there are delete and merge !votes in this nom discussion. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Artwork, yes. A nice viewpoint that did not occur to me. I should move from Keep to Speedy keep considering that. Thank you, Gerda. :) It's starting to snow at this AfD. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 07:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Snow? Not. Three deletes and two merges so far takes this AfD out of the realm of possibility for a snow close. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
As artwork it's broadly similar to Rubber_Duck_(sculpture) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.187.157 ( talk) 08:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
We really need to add something to NotNews to make people wait at least a week (tomorrow) before nominating something with this rationale. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ L3X1:Maybe people should wait a week before they write the article?-- Rusf10 ( talk) 01:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Spot on, Rusf10. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Oh I believe that full on. 2 wrongs don't make a kite. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Winkelvi: It would have been better if you had proposed renaming the article to Protests against Donald Trump's 2018 visit to London or something like that. The simple fact of the matter is that with hundreds of thousands of attendees each of these protests is independently notable even if the balloon may not be.---  Coffeeand crumbs 02:39, 15 July 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 15:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Mafkarat al Islam

Mafkarat al Islam (  | 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 GNG; the one notable mention is the State Department's criticism. Article is basically unchanged since early 2007. Jprg1966 (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:42, 14 July 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 15:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

TITANIIC

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

TITANIIC is another Replica Titanic project that does not appear to have advanced beyond the proposal stage as there is no formal announcement of a signed shipyard contract. If falls into WP:CRYSTAL as there is no clear fundraising strategy to raise the hundreds of millions of dollars. So it is very unlikely to ever get built.

It has serious WP:VERIFIABILITY citation issues as the inline citations are in Czech. Any English language online references to the project appear to be Wikimirrors. I ran the Czech web sites cited through Google translate and they appear to be interviews with the project leader on sites that have minimal fact checking and/or editorial oversight. To give one example, the machine translation quoted the project leader as claiming that QM2 designer Stephen Payne was working for his project for free. Nor have I found any independent source to support his claim of shipyard STX France having an official business partnership with the TITANIIC project. The organization also fails WP:ORG for notability as it has no coverage beyond the Czech web sites and there is no inherit notability by claiming a connection with a notable naval architect or comparison to the Clive Palmer Titanic II. Finally, there is serious WP:COI by the page creating editor whose name also appears on their web site as a staff employee. Merging this article into Replica Titanic still would not address the verifiability problems. This organization appears to be a dream by a promoter who has built a very nice web site but has no engineering team, realistic fund raising strategy, or idea who would operate the ship. Wikipedia is not a free publicity site to give legitimacy to a fund raising cause. Blue Riband► 00:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: If we were to use steel cut as a criteria for inclusion then an entire category, Cancelled ships of the United States Navy, would be up for AfD. Then do we do about the USS United States (CVA-58) which had its keel laid only to have it broken up when funding was withdrawn? If there is widespread notable press and industry coverage in reliable sources then it would meet WP:Notability regardless of our personal opinions of the project sponsors. Blue Riband► 02:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Steel cut occurs before keel laying; sometimes by many months. (See MSC Seaside for an example.) Comments on the two Princess Kaguya AfDs linked above advocated for keel laying as the trigger for an article, which is more stringent a standard. As to notability: widespread publicity, is not the sole criterion to be met for an article to appear on Wiki; the project must be reasonably certain to take place, per WP:CRYSTAL. Kablammo ( talk) 12:55, 15 July 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_July_14&oldid=1142616196"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 13 July 15 July >

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. page deleted by CactusWriter (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 10:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Olaolu Akorede Olabode

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

References cited in the article do not focus on this subject. A quick google search also do not show any proof of notability. Article creator is currently blocked for sockpuppetry. Jamie Tubers ( talk) 22:14, 14 July 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. MBisanz talk 02:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry

Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry (  | 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 necessarily a rivalry, both schools have no notable history. However, both did play on the field for nearly forty years, but I don't think it could be considered a rivalry due this fact. There are many Southeastern Conference teams who played traditionally before and after the expansion of Southeastern Conference, and don't consider them as rivals. I also could not find any reliable sources to support this as a major rivalry. CollegeRivalry ( talk) 20:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom; the only source that describes this as a rivalry is a fan-blog that calls it "forgotten". It doesn't remotely compare to Georgia's rivalries with Auburn, Florida, or Georgia Tech. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per power~enwiki. Jweiss11 ( talk) 03:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. My searches do not reveal significant coverage dealing with this series as a historical rivalry. That said, there is IMO also room for stand-alone articles about historically significant series that have had a particularly long history, major upsets or multiple match-ups where both teams were highly ranked. Here, the history is not so long -- the period of annual play ran only from 1966 to 2002. Further, there has not been even one game where both teams were ranked in the top 10 -- the highest ranked matchup was 1968 (#13 vs. #17). Nor is there a history of major upsets -- the biggest upset was 1967 (unranked Ole Miss upset #3 Georgia in an early season game). Cbl62 ( talk) 05:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – nothing more than a cross-divisional matchup that occurs once every few years. PCN 02 WPS 05:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Pile on vote here. The very first reference is titled "the forgotten rivalry." "Forgotten" could probably be interpreted as "not notable" here. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 11:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    NOTE: Focus on the word "forgotten" is misplaced. Remember, notability is not temporary. Accordingly, a historic rivalry from 50 or even 100 years ago that is defunct or "forgotten" by today's fan base remains notable for our purposes. Here, my searches focused on the years when the GA-MS series was most active, and I did not find significant coverage even then dealing with it as a rivalry. So it's not that this is a "forgotten" rivalry, but, rather, that it appears to be a "never was" rivalry. Cbl62 ( talk) 16:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, and merge as needed. This may be a real thing, under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, but clearly not independently WP:Notable.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:47, 17 July 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. MBisanz talk 02:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Tanner Mayes

Tanner Mayes (  | 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 BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The award listed, "Best New Starlet of the Year (People's Choice)", is not significant. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete nothing even close to notability. We have a clear overabundance of articles on pornographic performers. I know I will get attacked for saying it, but it is true. Any reasonable criteria that required as much reliable source coverage of them as require of most people would cutr this category in half. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:29, 16 July 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 keep per WP:SKCRIT#2. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 18:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Onision

Onision (  | 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 important enough for his own Wikipedia page. U injury ( talk) 19:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: Above user have been blocked by Ronhjones for being a vandalism only account. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 11:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Pinging Ronhjones. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 12:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 11:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 11:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 11:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 11:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Nosebagbear: I don't know. I thought I might add that comment in case the closing admin isn't aware of the fact. It's more of an FYI. Perhaps another user who's more knowledgable of Wikipedia's policy might chime in? -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 12:07, 16 July 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 keep per WP:SKCRIT#2. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 18:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

It's Alive! (card game)

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

It's not really important, and doesn't need its own Wikipedia page. U injury ( talk) 19:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Can you please give a reason as to why this card game isn't notable by backing up your claim by checking wikipedia's notability guidelines to see if this game fails them? This AFD seems to be suspicious due to all the warnings on your talk page related to edits. 344917661X ( talk)
However, i'm not sure if this card game is notable enough. 344917661X ( talk) 20:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 12:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 12:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 12:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 12:58, 16 July 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. Article has been significantly expanded since nomination. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Roy Moller

AfDs for this article:
Roy Moller (  | 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 has simply been re-created with no references still, some ten years later! I gather the creator intends to use the enternal links as refs at a future date, but the BBC link isn't anything usable as it just lists a handful of songs that have been played on the radio (presumably BBC Scotland). Beyond mentions on some blog type websites, Google doesn't bring much up on this artist. Todmuggins ( talk) 19:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 04:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ John: to notify the article creator about this AfD. AllyD ( talk) 08:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Obviously as the article creator I am going to say Keep. I believe the sources, particularly the two BBC ones, comfortably establish notability. It is an untruth to say Page has simply been re-created...; I did not even look at the deleted version from ten years ago but have based the article on more recent sources. -- John ( talk) 11:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vexations ( talk) 11:37, 15 July 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 Withdrawn by nominator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurricanehink ( talk • contribs)

Hurricane Beryl

Hurricane Beryl (  | 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 Category 1 hurricane, failed to even affect land as a tropical system. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Content can be accommodated easily at 2018 Atlantic hurricane season#Hurricane Beryl. Buttons0603 ( talk) 18:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn by nominator - wasn't aware that a merge discussion would be more appropriate, apologies. Buttons0603 ( talk) 19:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Several things wrong here. This is not how you request this (it could be a redirect) and second the article is too large now to fit in the 2018 AHS page. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 19:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Oppose – Doesn't fail NOTNEWS, sufficient news sources in multiple languages covering the event. Impact on land is applicable to the overall storm regardless of whether or not it was a tropical cyclone at the time. AfD is inappropriate for this situation; a merge discussion on the talk page is how this should be handled. ~ Cyclonebiskit ( chat) 19:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Oppose – I echo the sentiments that Cyclonebiskit noted earlier. A tropical cyclone need not remain a tropical cyclone to be newsworthy, particularly when impacting land. From what I see, there is fairly clear, reliable, and verifiable coverage of Beryl's effects in the Caribbean, regardless if they were remnants of the storm. TheAustinMan( Talk· Works) 19:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Strong Oppose – My statements echo those of Cyclonebiskit and TheAustinMan, wherein a tropical cyclone itself does not need to be a tropical cyclone to be noteworthy. Beryl was in addition a very unusual tropical cyclone, developing in the Main Development Region within the otherwise unfavorable month of July, as well as regenerating over the Gulf Stream as a subtropical cyclone. I see nothing here to remove. Cooper 19:08, 14 July 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. MBisanz talk 02:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Jeremy Triefenbach

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

Possible hoax. I can't find any evidence this person existed. There was a German family named Triefenbach that moved to St. Louis and Illinois, including a Johann Heinrich Triefenbach (8 May 1820 – 8 August 1871) but he adopted the name Henry, not Jeremy. And anyway I can't find any evidence of notability, amazing survival story, inventor of outdoor recreation (what?) or this autobiography, It's a Good Deal. Only Jeremy Triefenbach I found that had any notability was a high school football quarterback in St. Louis. —Мандичка YO 😜 18:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • ′′′Delete′′′ As possible hoax and due to lack of sources identified to substantiate notability. Edison ( talk) 18:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom; possible hoax. I see no evidence of book titled "it's a good deal" by anyone of this name. No references and no claim of significance or importance. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - this article does not cite any sources and is extremely vague on this man's dates - it just says he was born in the early 1820s and died at the end of the nineteenth century. Vorbee ( talk) 18:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I have a sense that Wikipedia coverage of 19th-century German and expatriate German educationists is less than it could be. Karl G. Maeser has been the subject of a major book for example, and at some point I will undertake to better align the article with insights from the work of A. LeGrand Richards. The article on the person he allegedly influenced is in severe need of editing for flow, but the article on Triefenbach is just not supported by anything. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • our article on Hahn actually claims his notions of "outdoor education" were drawn from Bernhard Zimmerman who was director of physical education at the University of Goenigen. It also places the emergence of these ideas, at least on Hahn's part, probably in the 1930s, although it is a bit iffy on timing details. The fact is that various ideas and manifestations of outdoor education go back to the founding of the Boy Scouts, and many other movements about the same time in 1910, and there are other things going on before that. Richard Ian Kimball' recreation in Zion work begins to suggest this was widespread in the 1900-1925 time frame, but the birth of the YMCa is in 1844, Naismith invents basketball at a YMCA school in 1891, and there are lots of other notions of renweal from sport and the outdoors going around for a long time. The article on Kurt Hahn says about nothing on his early life, it says he founded a school in 1920, and then skips to his excile from Germany in about 1933. Hahn was the cofounder of Outward Bound, but I see less than clear sourcing to make this the actual start of outdoor education. Scouting was formed in 1907, and organized camping existed earlier than that. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It is claimed that the forest schools started in 1927 in Wisconsin under Dean H. L. Russell of the University of Wisconsin College of Agriculture were the first example of such a program. On the other hand, the paragraph on the Wisconsin forest schools in the article on forest schools lacks any sources, so I can not at this point vouch for its accuracy. This is something that could use more study. What is clear is that no one anywhere outside of this Wikipedia article seems to connect Triefenbach to the rise of this movement. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Mention of the snowdrift survival story, and the supposed autobiography, originated as far as I can tell in the snowdrift article by an IP edit, five days before this article was created with no mention of it at first. Deep Gabriel ( talk) 23:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • A reference added when the article was created was probably intended to link to the page now archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20070208121724/http://www.isu.edu/outdoor/history.htm but there is no mention of Triefenbach there. Peter James ( talk) 13:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:52, 18 July 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 keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 1000 05:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Tom Spahn

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

Has a lot of unreliable sources. » Shadowowl | talk 17:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I believe he has won three Daytime Emmys - that is where his nominations are anyway. While not as prestigious as Primetime Emmys, I think his overall body of work is sufficient for notability, and it's not a hoax. [7] —Мандичка YO 😜 18:29, 14 July 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 keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 1000 05:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Universal Soul

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

This article does not contain reliable sources, only garbage ones. » Shadowowl | talk 17:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:13, 15 July 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 keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 1000 05:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Power "Kosa Leka"

Power "Kosa Leka" (  | 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 article states that he won an award, but there are no sources for that. This article has a lot of garbage sources. » Shadowowl | talk 17:42, 14 July 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. Tone 06:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Ørmen

Ørmen (  | 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 adding references to this article, I realised not a whole lot exist and looking at Google Maps it is quite obvious why. Therefore, expanding this article is going to be close to impossible as far as notability go. The article is linked to by List of villages in Østfold Baerentp ( talk) 17:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 20 July 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 20:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Glen Meadows

Glen Meadows (  | 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 BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sourced to online directories and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 14 July 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 keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 1000 05:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Martín Deiros

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

4 sources, of which 2 are unreliable and 1 is a mention. The article says that he won the Pampa award, however, this is not stated in the source. » Shadowowl | talk 16:57, 14 July 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 20:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Pitambari Products Pvt. Ltd

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

Puff piece by undisclosed paid sockfarm. Includes garbage sources. » Shadowowl | talk 16:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Definately a product of bad UPE. Sources are all pretty abysmal, and do not appear independent. Couldnt find any others. Does not meet WP:GNG. or WP:CORPDEPTH. Curdle ( talk) 12:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:17, 18 July 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 Irdning#Sport. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 20:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

ATV Arena

ATV Arena (  | 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 to establish notability or satisfy WP:GNG. Says some notable teams have trained there while passing through, but no indication of any actual notable games or events taking place. Also poorly referenced. Jellyman ( talk) 16:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping if you had replied 14:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping if you had replied 14:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping if you had replied 14:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping if you had replied 14:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It exists, and it's mentioned a lot, but doesn't appear to be the subject of in-depth coverage. If you exclude a long list of false positives [8] not much comes up. If you switch to news sources after this exclusion chain, it's just jack [9]. Even general web hits are mostly photos. I.e., the training ground is real, and it gets used for taking player photos, and people mention it in passing, but no one seems to be writing about the arena itself – its founding and history, its significance in the world. It's rather like trying to have an article about building Mariana 3 on the Apple Inc. campus.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 03:37, 18 July 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 20:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Jade-Blue Eclipse

Jade-Blue Eclipse (  | 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 BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Alleged crimes listed do not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Interest shown by only one reliable source, a local paper. Not enough to pass WP:BASIC. No real claim of notability per WP:NACTOR or WP:PORNBIO. An undocumented immigrant using a stolen ID doesn't rise to notability per WP:N/CA. Colorful but not notable. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:43, 16 July 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 keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 1000 05:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Mason Neely

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

Has no references. » Shadowowl | talk 16:44, 14 July 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 United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2018. MBisanz talk 02:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Andy Kim (politician)

Andy Kim (politician) (  | 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 political staffer and candidate. Does not pass WP:GNG as few sources discuss him, and the ones that do do so in the context of a political campaign, where the election is the subject. Does not pass WP:NPOL as merely a candidate for higher office. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
There's always a news story about every damn candidate in the entire United States every week. And having his name mentioned in a news story doesn't automatically assist in building his notability, either — he has to be the subject of a piece of coverage before it assists in demonstrating notability, not just a person whose name happens to show up in coverage of something else. Bearcat ( talk) 18:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
He is the subject of almost every article cited on his page. Lebanonman19 ( talk) 05:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Coverage which exists specifically in the context of an election campaign does not assist in building the notability of a person who wasn't already notable for other reasons before becoming a candidate, because that type of coverage always exists for every candidate in every election at the federal and state and municipal levels. So the only sources that count as potential notability builders here are the ones that exist outside the context of the campaign itself, and all of the sources that exist outside the campaign context here, such as #9 "At war over Obama's new war in Iraq", are mere namechecks of his existence in coverage about other things. For campaign coverage to contribute notability in and of itself, it would have to be shown that he's getting so much more campaign coverage than everybody else is that he would have a credible claim to being special — candidates are not automatically deemed notable enough for encyclopedia articles just because some campaign coverage exists, because there's no candidate for whom some campaign coverage ever doesn't exist. Bearcat ( talk) 15:41, 17 July 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. MBisanz talk 02:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Taylor Rain

Taylor Rain (  | 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 BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The awards listed, such as "FOXE Award – Vixen of the Year", are not significant. K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:48, 14 July 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. MBisanz talk 02:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

DBL Partners

DBL Partners (  | 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 directory-like page on an unremarkable venture capital fund. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/Mokwepa with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:02, 18 July 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 20:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

List of songs with rhythmic train samples

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

Useless list. Possible incomplete, and not sourced. Text in gray box copied from [10]. » Shadowowl | talk 16:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:05, 18 July 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 keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Hhkohh ( talk) 12:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Macau national under-23 football team

Macau national under-23 football team (  | 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 reference proof notability, fails GNG B dash ( talk) 16:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 16:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 16:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 16:27, 14 July 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 Meshuggah. I specifically rejected the argument to keep which suggested we could find better sources on the band's own website. That's pretty much the definition of not a WP:RS. There's no reason to delete the history; it may be useful for material to merge. Such a merge is clearly not part of the consensus, but not prohibited either. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Jens Kidman

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

Unreliable sources ; All except 1 (the loudwire article) are unreliable. I cannot access the Loudwire article due to GDPR access prevention. Also contains WP:FLOWERY language like famous and unique while those claims are not sourced. » Shadowowl | talk 16:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I have seen the Loudwire article and it does not go into any kind of detail about Kidman's life or career, which would be necessary to satisfy notability requirements. Instead, the article says that Kidman was replaced by a cardboard cutout on tour dates during a period of illness. There are statements from the band and from Kidman, but nothing to establish notability beyond being a member of the band. Binksternet ( talk) 16:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think more should be (and could be) included about Jens Kidman's life and career. This article shouldn't necessarily be deleted. Sure, there aren't enough referenced bits of news on his page, but that could be easily fixed. More properly referenced articles about Jens could be found if we look a little harder on the internet or on Meshuggah's official website. Mr. Brain ( talk) 03:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:56, 18 July 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 keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 1000 05:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Kuppathu Raja

Kuppathu Raja (  | 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 has 1 source, for the soundtrack. All the other information is unsourced. » Shadowowl | talk 16:00, 14 July 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. MBisanz talk 02:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Concrete Immortalz

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

Has no reliable sources. » Shadowowl | talk 15:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:53, 18 July 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. MBisanz talk 02:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Real Fighter (2016)

Real Fighter (2016) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS ( talk| c| em) 15:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 15:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 15:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • delete completely non notable film. Its been completely refspammed with non RS- They are pretty much all either crowd sourced or aggregated info movie celebrity sites. None of the information is in depth, its all just directory listings. Some of that rubbish has even found its way into the article itself "and cinebee rated 24 out of 100" Cinebee is a crowd sourced site, and precisely two users came up with that score. Curdle ( talk) 14:30, 18 July 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 keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 1000 05:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Le Soir de Tunisie

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

Unsourced article with a spammy youtube link. » Shadowowl | talk 15:30, 14 July 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. Some sources were presented, but they didn't convince the other reviewers that WP:N was established. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Stev´nn Hall

Stev´nn Hall (  | 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 are certainly sources but I do not believe that they are of sufficient quality to establish notability for a visual artist. There is nothing in the article that suggests that he passes WP:Artist either. Nor does a search throw up anything, other than evidence t TheLongTone ( talk) 15:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 16:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 16:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci (✉) 18:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The only source that is of any use for notability is the Globe and Mail review, and that's just a short review amongst several others. Perhaps the creators.vice.com link is useful, but I can't personally verify that. The Thomas Waugh essay ( google books link here) only mentions him in a screen grab and caption. The article's claim that his "satyrical short film 'Bondage Television' deserved broad commentary by the film writer Thomas Waugh in the context of masculine sexual orientation" is not backed up by the cited text itself (nor does it make much sense as a sentence -- Hall's short film deserved more "broad commentary" by "the film writer Thomas Waugh"? Or is Waugh claiming it deserves more broad commentary in general?) Either way, it doesn't seem to appear in the cited text and cannot be verified. If the original author of this Wikipedia article is making some sort of claim about what Waugh has or has not done as a scholar on behalf of Hall, that would be original research and a POV issue. Further searching turns up very little, a few mentions that only confirm Hall as an artist, but nothing that supports WP:GNG (or WP:ARTIST for that matter). freshacconci (✉) 18:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Globe article is good, but it's not enough. Lacks RS to establish GNG. 96.127.242.226 ( talk) 23:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is far too dependent on blogs and primary sources, and not nearly enough on reliable sources, to deem him notable — but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced much better than this. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do much better than this. Bearcat ( talk) 17:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above - Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 20:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This source extensively talks about the artist and the artworks. The translated title is: "The photographer Stev'nn Hall portrayed the painful relationship between the conscious and the unconscious." The article writes "The mixed media artist from Toronto, Canada, Stev'nn Hall, in his series 'Against Himself' makes an atypical approach to how we relate to ourselves. It is extremely difficult to put forward the feelings we repress every day in contrast to the face we show to people close to us. However, it is not possible to deny that those feelings, impulses and intentions are there, present, all the time" and "In what seems to be an exercise in bringing the unconscious to the front, the series shows portraits of different individuals a difficult facet to play. Naked, humiliated, hanged and so on, individuals attack themselves in different ways, questioning what these signs of power made to oneself could mean." (The machine translation is not great, but I think the meaning is decipherable.) The article goes on to say in translation "On the one hand, they could refer to the unconscious impulses that we seek to tame. However, on the other side, it seems that Hall's photographs and montages speak about the complex relationship that the mind has with the body. The physical instances that compel us to put ourselves at the greatest possible risk, feel adrenaline, activate it, being pampered by a physical instantiation that stops us" and "The photographs give free rein to our relationship with our body, our mind and what we love and hate about ourselves. You can see more, below." That last reference is to the ten photographs of the artist's work that are included in this review. Definitely a substantial review. I believe the source is Vice Media. Bus stop ( talk) 12:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Also, this extensive review addresses Hall as an artist, especially the dissimilarity as well as the connections between the two styles of work he has produced—photographs of people and photographs of landscapes/seascapes. I think this is a serious review that attempts to probe the significance of the output of the artist. Bus stop ( talk) 13:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Also, I've added, as an external link, this 2011 interview with Stevnn' Hall which I think is worth everyone's 33 minutes. The seriousness of the artist is apparent and it is informative of the artist's concerns. Bus stop ( talk) 22:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closing administrator On (3:00 AM/July 19, 2018) I edited the article adding hopefully more comprehensive references and making a few text changes in an attempt to address some of the above comments. Thanks to all intervening participants for their contribution.
  • Further note to closing administrator On (5:00 PM/July 20, 2018) I edited the article again, making various fixes in attention the above discussion, hoping to improve the article and its chances to be kept. Thank you. Neuralia ( talk) 20:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment he is not listed in the CHIN (Canadian Heritage Information Network) list of " Artists in Canada", which is a pretty easy way of determining ballpark notability, by seeing if any of the contributing "Twenty-three libraries and art galleries" across Canada have a file on him. If 23 libraries and galleries do not see him as notable enough to start a file, I am not sure why we should. They do have 42,700 other artists listed. 96.127.242.226 ( talk) 02:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
"I am not sure why we should" I think we should. Sources take the artist seriously. Recognition is accorded the artist in the sources available to us. The author, RM Vaughn, focusses on three reviews in this source. The first of the three is that of Stev´nn Hall, and the headline derives from the work of Stev´nn Hall, reading "Electric skyscapes are a kick in the head". That is a reference to the two different styles in which the artist works. This is mentioned in the body of the review. One style involves human figures, in aggressive poses. The other involves landscapes, in which are sometimes found fiery skies. This is not a superficial review. It touches upon not only the significance of the work but the techniques used to bring the work about. This alone could establish notability. This source importantly includes what look to me as ten good quality photographs to represent some of the photographer's work. It characterizes him as a mixed media artist, something our article should mention. Vice Media, the publisher of this review, is a well-regarded source. This is a well-written and thoughtful review. Though not easily quantifiable, that is something we should be looking for, to establish notability. Bus stop ( talk) 02:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
You are just repeating everything you already said in an earlier comment. Please avoid using repetition and walls of text to bludgeon the discussion. 96.127.242.226 ( talk) 03:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
But you do notice that Vice Media, which is a good-quality source, includes ten images of this artist's work in this review. Can you dismiss that as simply not sufficient for establishing notability? In my opinion notability is amply satisfied in the instance of this artist. Please tell me your thoughts on this. Bus stop ( talk) 11:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nothing that shows he meets WP:Artist. There are no reviews of exhibitions or gallery openings etc; art blogs may like using the pretty pictures, but noone important seems to have taken notice of him yet. Curdle ( talk) 07:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Hi Curdle— this would be a review of an art gallery exhibition. Bus stop ( talk) 11:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The artist has won significant critical attention. Both of the sources that I've commented upon at length constitute "significant critical attention". Could the attention be more significant? Of course. But the above is adequate to establish that this is a serious artist working long-term in a well-defined area who has garnered a modicum of recognition. Wikipedia has standards of notability but when they are met you can't keep demanding more. Our standard should not be understood to only include only stodgy well-accepted artists but also those whose careers are relatively new. When an artist's name is the key factor that makes the artwork good, that artist is already a has-been. On the other hand the artist whose work alone is the key to whatever meager degree of success they have achieved, and whose name is unknown—that would be my idea of a "non-stodgy" artist. We have ample indication in sources that the work of this artist is beginning to open up doors. Both of the above sources are prominent reviews of this emerging artist's work. Our notability standards are not specific as to what degree of prominence is adequate but we can use common sense. On a separate note I can't tell what you are referring to by "some commentary above insinuating subject's artistic merit. What is that a reference to? Do you mean on the part of sources or on the part of editors? Bus stop ( talk) 12:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The subject's artistic merit has been insinuated by editors. Namely, you. You see, I may agree that some subject is notable in real life, but this does not mean I automatically believe the subject is also Wikinotable. This encyclopaedia has its own rules. Within which, verifiability through the testimony of reliable sources is a paramount one. And since Wikipedia accepts sources rather than personal testimony, and established sources more than non-established ones, it figures that Wikipedia would be perforce slanted towards more "stodgy well-accepted artists" and fewer artists "whose careers are relatively new." So, Wikipedia will never be the encyclopaedia of (or even a guide for) the Avant-Guarde. I have fully accepted this state of affairs; and you should too, I think, for the sake of your peace of mind. - The Gnome ( talk) 14:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
P.S. I normally welcome chinwags between editors, Bus stop. What I want to avoid, with all due respect, is another waterfall of impassioned and obliterating biblical thunder like the one you unleashed last time. So, I'm engaging here very, very carefully. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk) 14:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
(after edit conflict) Please tell me or show me where I have insinuated the subject's artistic merit, The Gnome. Bus stop ( talk) 14:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
PS—of course, I have not, The Gnome. Bus stop ( talk) 15:04, 22 July 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 merged into Marion Section by creator. ansh 666 23:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Bombay, Jersey City

Bombay, Jersey City (  | 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 appear to be a valid name for the neighborhood. None of the references use the term Bombay, New Jersey Google maps doesn't recognize it, and a google search ends up pointing only to Wikipedia articles. I prod-ed the article but that was removed with the comment "It's now a valid neighborhood" but without any sources that confirm that. regentspark ( comment) 13:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Google is a good search engine, but neither Google (nor any other) search engine nor Google Maps is always up to date. The fact is that Bombay is now a valid unincorporated and loosely defined Jersey City neighborhood, to which the article's multiple editors have already attested consensus. That consensus itself meets the article's Wikipedia standard for being. Castncoot ( talk) 18:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • A core Wikipedia standard is WP:Verifiability as proven by reliable sources, not the assertions of two Wikipedia editors. The article's references don't support the concept of "Bombay" as neighborhood in Jersey City. And it is not for Wikipedia to push that concept on the world without proof of notability. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • It's actually not two, but three editors, all independent, and all with robust New Jersey topic experience. If someone without New Jersey topic experience has a problem with a particular statement, then the appropriate action would be to place a citation needed tag onto that statement - that is the usual Wikipedia protocol - not to request wiping out an entire article due to their own topical inexperience. Castncoot ( talk) 04:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • There already are plenty of reliable sources quoted. This article falls under the same format as other short articles, no different. The other primary editors including the creator should also be informed of this discussion. Castncoot ( talk) 18:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
None of these "reliable sources" state that the neighborhood is known as "Bombay". Re your claims about New Jersey experience, please note that Wikipedia is not a "crowd sourced" encyclopedia but rather is a reliably sourced encyclopedia.-- regentspark ( comment) 21:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete none of the articles I've seen reference the neighborhood directly or indirectly, and I can't find any sources on my own which reference it in a WP:BEFORE search. I can't find any reliable sources which show it's an actual defined neighborhood. SportingFlyer talk 21:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Seems to fail WP:GEOLAND. The references do not list this neighborhood by name, and while I am seeing references to it at DuckDuckGo, nothing is jumping out at me to indicate that this is notable. There are mentions of the Indian-American population of Jersey City, but that's nothing that can't be covered in the city's own article. Actually, while we can't use it as a WP:RS, I do see a YouTube video with a description saying that this is the same as India Square, in which case this would be a duplicate article. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 21:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I hate to sound blunt, but why don't you be bold and take care of that yourself? No worries, I will put the template on their talk page (not that you really have to use a template if you don't know how to do that, it's just easier that way). I'm not trying to come across as mean, it's just what you are asking is not hard to do and I'm trying to make sure you are aware of that. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 00:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Actually, they were already notified here. Have a blessed day. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 00:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Looks like they've been on a Wikibreak since May 31st, 2018. Let's give them a chance to return to Wikipedia first. Castncoot ( talk) 01:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
There is a source (from the India Square article) that Little India is located in the Jersey City neighborhood of "Little Bombay." Kiniry, Laura. "Moon Handbooks New Jersey", Avalon Travel Publishing, 2006. pg. 34 ISBN 1-56691-949-5. Retrieved April 11, 2015 Irehdna ( talk) 02:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
That, at best, merits a line in the India Square article (with the qualified term "Little Bombay"). Not the creation of a new neighborhood "Bombay, NJ". (Using a better source than a travel guide, which are not generally considered reliable.)-- regentspark ( comment) 02:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
That's where we beg to differ. They are two different entities. India Square is simply the center of Bombay, or New Bombay, or Little Bombay, as people in the area are referring to the encompassing neighborhood these days. Each entity is entitled to its article with reliable sources, and travel guides are not barred as WP:RS. Castncoot ( talk) 05:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
OK, now it's reliably sourced, with an ISBN number. Thanks to User:Irehdna for pointing this out. Castncoot ( talk) 05:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks also to User:Tinton5 for appropriately making the correct move from "Bombay, NJ" to "Bombay, Jersey City". That's the other point that User:RegentsPark appears to be missing. Castncoot ( talk) 05:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Castncoot, could you please give the exact text from the source that mentions Little Bombay that clarifies where the boundaries of this neighborhood are? Thanks. -- regentspark ( comment) 20:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
In response to your comment about wikibreaks, depending on the user's preferences, they may receive an email every time someone edits their talk page. Regardless, we can't keep the AfD open just to wait for someone to return from wikibreak. The creator does not own the article. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 01:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Mergeto India Square, does not require separate article. Djflem ( talk) 20:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Unlike British neighborhoods, many U.S. neighborhoods, especially within major cities, do not in fact have boundaries. New York City is a prime example of that. One might say they're in either Forest Hills or in Rego Park in Queens, and they wouldn't necessarily be wrong either way. One might also say they're in Kips Bay or in Rose Hill in Manhattan, and they wouldn't necessarily be wrong either way. But note that each of these has a separate Wikipedia page. In the U.S., unincorporated neighborhoods in major cities are often (though not always) loosely and culturally defined. The salient point for Wikipedia is notability. The source succinctly and reliably states that Little India ( India Square) lies within the Jersey City neighborhood of Little Bombay. In other words, India Square is a micro-neighborhood within the macro-neighborhood of Bombay, Jersey City, which Wikipage is only two months old and needs time to develop, but in fact was vetted, reviewed, and even moved from Bombay, New Jersey to Bombay, Jersey City. Also note that the West Village is a micro-neighborhood within the macro-neighborhood of Greenwich Village, both in turn within Manhattan, but neither the West Village nor Greenwich Village has clearly defined boundaries - they are more loosely and culturally defined. Castncoot ( talk) 22:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
By the way User:Irehdna, is it valid to say that your iVote is Keep? Castncoot ( talk) 22:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Speaking of which, all iVotes will need to take into consideration the newly sourced page. Castncoot ( talk) 23:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
{{ping}Castncoot}}, it would be helpful if you would provide the exact quote from the source so that we can make an informed judgement. For your Manhattan examples above, we have plenty of sources while there does seem to be a paucity of sources for Little Bombay (and none, if I may say, for Bombay) so a full quotation would be helpful. Thanks. -- regentspark ( comment) 23:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

If one prefers a merge to Marion Section instead of India Square would be more appropriate since the area includes the parts of the Journal Square district just north of the square itself and most of the area west of it, including Newark Avenue. Djflem ( talk) 05:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I think a reference to "Little Bombay" is probably ok since a google search [12] throws up articles that use that term synonymously with India Square, even though none qualify as RS (and I still haven't seen the actual text from the Moon guide). However, Bombay seems totally egregious and made up to me and should not appear anywhere on Wikipedia. At best, a line in India Square along the lines of sometimes called "Little India" or "Little Bombay" may be appropriate. -- regentspark ( comment) 13:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
This is where topic experience is critical, User:RegentsPark. The *fact* is that, as User:Irehdna pointed out, India Square lies within Bombay/New Bombay/Little Bombay. To complicate things further, as User:Djflem has validly pointed out, the loosely defined Bombay neighborhood has now also sprawled over into the Marion Section of Jersey City as well. So RegentsPark's proposal is not acceptable (because it's now factually incorrect), even if it may have had validity as recently as ten years ago. India Square connotes the commercial center of Bombay/New Bombay/Little Bombay, which in turn represents more of a cultural zone encompassing both India Square and the Journal Square areas. We cannot be telling Wikipedia readers that 2+2=5. I believe that the correct solution here is to develop this article properly to reflect these intricacies as well as vagaries. The way I see it, deleting an article is simply a copout as a way to avoid necessary work. Castncoot ( talk) 01:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Perhaps that's true, but I haven't seen a single source which supports that assertion, and undefined neighborhoods are held to the WP:GNG standard per WP:GEOLAND. In the absence of any reliable sources this is a clear delete or merge. SportingFlyer talk 04:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Exactly. @ Castncoot: you need to find reliable sources for your assertions otherwise we, i.e., Wikipedia, will be creating new neighborhoods out of nothing (once again, we are not a crowd sourced site). Reliable sourcing is a core policy for a very good reason and no sources for Bombay exist. Little Bombay does seem to be used as an alternative name for India Square, though you still haven't provided the text of that source, so that can be stated in the India Square article. But creating an article on Bombay, New Jersey (or Jersey City) merely on the basis of "topic experience" is not acceptable. -- regentspark ( comment) 22:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
What Djflem is pointing out is that this article should be redirected to India Square or Marion Section, of which India Square is part with the proper citation in the article as opposed to creating new articles such a Koreatown, Palisades and Koreatown, Fort Lee, which give a name that is not really in use to communities large concentrations of an ethnic group, but rather use existing names and article and expand on those. That's the work. Djflem ( talk) 22:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
OK User:Djflem, I can agree to merging this article into Marion Section. Castncoot ( talk) 00:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply
---> Done. Castncoot ( talk) 05:50, 19 July 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 15:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

South Carolina gubernatorial election, 2022

South Carolina gubernatorial election, 2022 (  | 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:TOOSOON article about a state gubernatorial election that's more than four years away as of today -- there's literally nothing of substance to say about this yet except that it's going to happen, and the only source being cited here is an unreliable blog entry about the incumbent governor predicting that he'll serve for at least ten years, not reliable or notability-supporting media coverage of the 2022 election as a thing that anybody's paying attention to yet. No prejudice against recreation in 2021 or 2022 when things are actually happening for an article to talk about, but there's simply no reason or need for this to already exist today. Bearcat ( talk) 13:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
And even then, the incumbent could still resign or die, or choose not to run again sometime in the next four years, or try to run again in 2022 but lose the primary. So even if he wins this fall, that still doesn't constitute a guarantee that he'll actually still be the Republican candidate in 2022. Bearcat ( talk) 15:32, 15 July 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 15:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Michaelwood services

Michaelwood 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)

Simple trivia, primary sources only. -- DexterPointy ( talk) 13:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 18:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • ROADOUTCOMES is an essay, not policy. We should not automatically assume that because something is "generally notable" in an essay topic that it is inherently notable in Wikipedia policy. Who also made the decision that service areas in Britain (but no other country) were generally notable? If it was on the basis of an outcome of a mass AfD (which was always going to end up as a trainwreck) then the fallback should consider reliable sources if there are any. Shopping centres covering a larger area and a greater number of facilities aren't always notable and I don't see why smaller services areas should have a higher status. Ajf773 ( talk) 22:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT (does not fail WP:NOTGUIDE, though.) Of the AfDs cited above as precedent, one is from 2006 when notability was different, and the other was a trainwreck, so precedent isn't clear. Roadoutcomes mentions the UK is different than the rest of the world, but again, it's not policy - this one fails WP:GNG at the moment and I can't understand why you'd have a keep for the UK. SportingFlyer talk 04:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Also note the ROADOUTCOMES was added here, based on the result of the Norton Canes services AfD, and seems to have sailed by for awhile: 16:01, September 6, 2009‎ Jeni (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,859 bytes) (+157)‎ . . (Added per WP:Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination) and previous AfDs. I have no issues discussing if this is considered a controversial addition. (WP:BRD)) (undo | thank) SportingFlyer talk 04:26, 19 July 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 per WP:SNOW. While there are only a few flakes of snow here, it's fairly clear that the notability just isn't here and waiting out the remaining days would only bring the same result. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Fire and Spice

Fire and Spice (  | 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 book does not meet notability criteria. There is very little third-party coverage and the article was created by a user found to be a sockpuppet. Manzarene ( talk) 12:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:50, 18 July 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 15:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

We R Friends

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

Non-notable film, no coverage or significant reviews. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:59, 14 July 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) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Bowral High School

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

This article does not cite sources and heavily relies on (what appears to be) original research. Therefore, I believe it does not meet the Wikipedia standards. ❂ string DTD❂ 10:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notable school in Bowral. There are two major schools: Bowral Public School (K-6) and Bowral High School (7-12). Here's a listing from Highland NSW official website [13] AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a high school. No reason to think that with local and hard copy searches sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such articles. Just Chilling ( talk) 18:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Run of the mill small town high school. The above editors seem unaware that secondary schools are no longer considered automatically notable following a large scale RFC: I'd encourage them to re-read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Nick-D ( talk) 23:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Trove news archive about new high school:

  • Dated 1928 back when it was still Bowral Intermediate High School [18]
  • Visit by Lord Chelmsford in 1921 to the Bowral District School [19]
  • 1925 plans to erect new high school [20]
  • 1927 construction plans [21]
  • 1928 enlargement of high school site [22]
  • 1929 foundation stone scheduled [23] laid [24] picture [25]
  • 1929 building in progress [26]
  • 1929 cost of high school $25,000 and description of building [27]
  • 1930 announcement that school has been classified raised to second class [28]
  • 1930 Official opening news article [29] [30] [31]
  • 1930 Speech Day and progress report by headmaster on class enrollment figures, erection of tennis courts, successes on the leaving exams - this is fairly significant coverage near the founding date of the facility [32]
  • 1930 Captains and Prefects named [33], Sports records created for school [34], 1931 scholarships for graduates [35]
  • 1935 PCA meeting for more courses (lists some courses that were present back in the days) [36]
  • 1935 death of headmaster Cowie [37]
  • 1937 Headmaster AD Watson (2nd headmaster of school) leaves [38]

The list goes on through other years but the stuff around 1930 is most pertinent as significant coverage by news sources. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 03:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Some nim-come-poop (not directed at anyone in particular) is probably going to come along and say but, but, but, that's all local coverage and there's nothing special about this place! and to that I challenge them to take a random sample of 50 articles from each of these categories: Category:Public high schools in California, Category:Cities in Florida, and Category:Prisons in Texas. How many of them are run-of-the-mill subjects that just barely meet WP:GNG (or, perhaps in you opinion, don't meet WP:GNG at all)? WP:OTHERSTUFF? Read over that argument closely before you cite it. The argument here isn't that one, two, ten, or even one hundred articles exist, the point is three quarters or more of Wikipedia content exists. If we nuke all of it, it won't just be Wikipedians noticing and talking about the mass removal of pages about little towns, moderately sized cities, schools, hospitals, etc. I point back to WP:NOTPAPER, and also to WP:IAR. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 11:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
For a "small town high school", it sure has significant coverage in multiple newspapers: Sydney Morning Herald, The Southern Mail (Bowral), The Robertson Advocate, The Scrutineer and Berrima District Press, The Labor Daily AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:38, 18 July 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 15:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Mundhum Trek

Mundhum Trek (  | 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 references, no evidence of notability, WP:BEFORE doesn't turn up anything Melcous ( talk) 10:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 12:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 13:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 13:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No refs offered or that I could find (in English) to support existence, let alone notability. It is not clear what this is meant to be, either. Public parkland? A marked trail? Someone's idea of a good hiking route? Happy to revisit if reliable sources can be found in Nepali or English. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 16:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:42, 18 July 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. Nomination withdrawn. Additional context helped clear up lack of results. ( non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 20:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Solo 1954/Piano Solo

Solo 1954/Piano Solo (  | 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:NALBUM. No indication in the course of searching that the album was notable on its own merit. WP:NOTINHERITED Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 21:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 02:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 02:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Clearly an article in need of expansion beyond a track list, not least to take account of its multiple editions (I have this as GNP9008, licensed from Vogue by GNP Crescendo in 1972 and unhelpfully entitled just "Thelonious Monk"). But noting especially the New Yorker item identified by Hobbes Goodyear ("Thelonious Monk’s first and, to my ears, greatest solo piano session"), I think there is enough for notability. AllyD ( talk) 11:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Withdrawing as keep. Appreciate the additional context from those more familiar with the subject. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 20:32, 15 July 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. Randykitty ( talk) 03:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Other Goddess Circle

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

Unable to find sufficient independent, secondary sources to establish notability under WP:NORG Seraphim System ( talk) 20:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ( talk) 20:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ( talk) 20:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ( talk) 20:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ( talk) 20:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ( talk) 20:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - With Goddess Circle. Not enough original, English language sources to justify its own page, and most of the content there is original research or unsourced. Bangabandhu ( talk) 16:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - three editors have made comments - under no circumstance should an afd of this type be closed with so few comments - a case of where even more time has to be allowed for comment - inadequate depth of comment it is not a SNOW and thus should be kept open until further comments arrive JarrahTree 00:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:NORG. The only source not connected with the subject is a primary document. Curdle ( talk) 14:44, 18 July 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. As with many school AfDs, the arguments come down to, Lack of independent sources vs, But we keep schools. It's also possible we're looking at a biased sampling of sources because Indian schools tend to not have as much on-line coverage as US schools. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

National English School, Kolkata

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

I personally am unable to decipher what is going on with this page...is it about National English School or abt Mangalam Vidya Niketan. That being said none of the subjects have any coverage in reliable sources  —  F R  + 14:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 15:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 15:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I've deleted the text pertaining to Mangalam Vidya Niketan and restored a stub for the school. That is a completely different school and some editors had hijacked the article. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep and develop The article now refers to the secondary school group as well as a teaching college. I've found one secondary article about the college establishment so far. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Here's a random article about a fight at the school. [39] AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. Just Chilling ( talk) 14:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
So Just Chilling, you want to make a point that you have more "experience" in this subject area than a person who lives in Calcutta itself ? Just FYI, all major dallies be it Bengali, English, etc native to this metropolitan region, have a strong presence on the internet itself. The only two sources found up-till now lack even the depth needed for a decent DYK criteria article. The first from Times of India Nie reads like a press release, the second is MILL coverage about two kids getting into fight that turned ugly. If you are such a firm believer in with enough research, sources can invariably be found, I ask you to get your hands dirty and instead of passing comments on my inability to do a through WP:BEFORE , try and find some of those excellent source you have mentioned above. If you however cannot I would request you to refactor your comment to reflect the same Thanks. —  F R  + 18:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
....even though the article cannot even pass the lower threshold of WP:GNG ? Please read this page [ [40]] as a explanation of why your logic is flawed. —  F R  + 02:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. About 90% of the time even in the most recent year we have kept verifiable high schools, on the basis that they form a reasonable exception-and the purpose for making them an exception is not just thatthey usually can be sourced with enough effort, and make suitable articles for beginners, but even more important, to avoid the potential thousands of debates such as this, which will , based on experience, come out essentially random. There's avirtue in consistency; there's a virtue in not making decisions that have no basis except the people who happen to show up for the discussion and how much effort they want to devote to the argument. (and when the argument, as here, seems to rely on personal knowledge that it is or is not important in its community, that's all the mroe reason. The claim that a person from the city doesn't think them notable and should therefore have the last word can be used to keep or delete almost anything.--its a classic IDONTLIKEIT/IDOLIKEIT argument. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable, does not meet GNG. Dearth of independent sources. Curdle ( talk) 07:25, 22 July 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 15:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Five Starcle Men

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

does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 ( talk) 05:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 13:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 13:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

This band was influential in the underground experimental music scene of the 1990s. They have over 27,000 downloads on the Internet Archive and many devoted fans: https://archive.org/details/lf074mp3 It is a mistake to remove this page. Wikipedia needs to hold space for bands with an alternative media presence outside mainstream distribution and publishing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valis911 ( talk • contribs) 21:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The sources in the article are cack, and there seems to be nothing better out there. -- Michig ( talk) 10:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. The Village Voice is the one decent source in the article, but it mentions the band only briefly as part of a wider article about bands and teen suicide. "Wikipedia needs to hold space for bands with an alternative media presence outside mainstream distribution and publishing" – only if the bands in question pass the notability and verifiability guidelines of WP:GNG and WP:V, Valis911. Richard3120 ( talk) 16:52, 20 July 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 15:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Sunesis Pharmaceuticals

Sunesis Pharmaceuticals (  | 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:NCORP. Looking at ghits, especially the news section, we see that most of the items listed as PR pieces, press release content and churnalism. If this company has failed to generate significant coverage in the past 20 years, we can assume that they are non notable. 2Joules ( talk) 03:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Unstruck nomination text, per WP:G5, since AfD initiated before sock block. - The Gnome ( talk) 05:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The Gnome, FreeatlastChitchat was blocked by NeilN on 6 March 2018, long before this page was created. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 12:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Are we not going with the date the nominator ("2Joules") was blocked? Moreover, if we strike off the nominator's whole text, then this means the AfD would be null and void and should be closed down immediately. - The Gnome ( talk) 12:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose — I am one of the editors who has contributed to the article. Of the 7 citations currently supporting the article, only one is a press release / self-published; the remaining 6 are from established news outlets, mostly newspapers, with one being from Science Translational Medicine. GHits are not a measure of notability any longer, considering the vast content in Internet Archive and Newspapers.com, neither of which are touched by Google. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 04:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ User:Ceyockey This mention in newspapers.com is just a trivial passing mention, so is this one. Then there are the quarterly financial reports used as sources. The source you mention from Science Translational Medicine is a blog. They explicitly state on the top that the blog is in no way affiliated with the magazine and does not have any peer review etc. They call it editorially independent. So it is not part of the magazine. With such unreliable sourcing, this should have been deleted ages ago. 2Joules ( talk) 08:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Striking off commentary by confirmed sockpuppet. - The Gnome ( talk) 05:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ User:2Joules — As with previous articles I've contributed to and which were ultimately deleted, I won't oppose if the consensus is delete. In regard to the blog posting, blog postings by notable individuals (i.e. who have articles on Wikipedia) are certainly reliable sources; the author just had not been linked before, now linked. Trivial mentions - I'll have to review these again to see if your evaluation aligns with my interpretation. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 01:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ User:CAPTAIN RAJU — I REALLY take issue with this being described as "promotional". There is no content which attempts to aggrandize or hype the firm. -- User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I presume, Ceyockey, you're addressing me rather than User:CAPTAIN RAJU. Briefly, the label " promotional" is based on the use of weaselly words and phrases in the contested article such as: "focused on"; "this new opportunity"; "tethering", without explanation (the source cited does not explain, while the DCC article itself is unsatisfactory, so the user is left staring at just an impressive sounding word); etc. Plus, this being an article indirectly about scientific subjects ( chemistry, biology), we need explanations for the terms used, otherwise, again, the user is left just staring at impressive wordage. For example, "...helping leukemia patients with a C481S mutation". What's "C4815"? And what it means to be a mutation of it? Admittedly, the sum does not constitute something highly promotional, but when it comes to articles about corporations, we must be vigilant. In any case, the bigger problem here is lack of notability; weasels can be run out. - The Gnome ( talk) 05:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
sorry for the mis-direction, @ The Gnome. I don't think I added any of the promotional-signals, and all of these can be addressed. The C4815 thing ... that bothered me too; drugs are now targeting specific mutations, but that info doesn't belong in the company article, but in the drug article. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 03:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, the latter in particular. The sources cited by the article are all either trivial mentions, press releases, minor list articles (such as the Wisconsin State Journal citation), etc. None these pass the newly-strengthened NCORP guideline for notability or CORPDEPTH. Furthermore, neither the sources cited nor the article itself make a credible claim to significance for the company, which seems to be a run-of-the-mill pharmaceutical company with doubtful encyclopedic notability.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 17:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment — @ User:SamHolt6 noted the WP:CORPDEPTH, which I'd not been familiar with prior to this; it provides a guide to source evaluation, which did not exist before. As I've been defending the article, I thought it incumbent upon me to do the WP:CORPDEPTH source analysis, which appears below. I'd be interested in how you feel my interpretation of sources matches your interpretations. I do agree that "2" as the count of supporting pass citations is insufficient to support a keep for the current state of the article. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
GenEngNews article Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN This is less about the company and more about a marketing submission for one of their products.
article about 'coverage' in Street Insider Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN This is a note about what I think is an investment bank and their starting to track performance of the company.
blog post at Science Translational Medicine Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY This blog posting is by a notable person and appears in association with a reputable journal publisher, though independent.
"Quest for the Cure" book citation Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN One sentence related to the founding of the company.
listing in Wisconsin State Journal Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Very brief note about an impending initial public offering
listing in Austin American-Statesman Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Very brief note about an impending initial public offering
Financial Results press release Green tickY Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN impossible to determine whether this is reliable, as self-published and not subject to penalty if false.
listing in News Journal Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Very brief note about a 4th quarter loss
article in Seeking Alpha following release of 2017 financial results Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY This source has not been fully utilized in the article.
article in Ukiah Daily Journal (AP piece) Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Collaborations between companies are not intrinsically significant, unless they yield significant outcomes and this is a note on the begining of a collab, which might yield nothing.
GenomeWeb "People In The News" Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN noting an award given to Wells, with mention of his founding of Sunesis
Total qualifying sources 2 There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 14 July 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. Randykitty ( talk) 03:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Childhood Cancer Research Group

Childhood Cancer Research Group (  | 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 subdivision of an academic department is not notable. Natureium ( talk) 17:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 18:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
That's a fun fact, but this isn't a person. By that criteria, almost any academic department would probably be notable enough, which is not the case. We probably don't want tens of thousands of articles on academic divisions and working groups. Natureium ( talk) 20:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply
handwavy "plenty of refs" is persuasive. You need to show them, and show that they are independent, and with significant discussion. See WP:NCORP Jytdog ( talk) 20:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Per WP:NCORP, sources must be independent. Aearches in google scholar are most likely turn up affiliations of authors, not independent sources with significant discussion about the organization. A simply invalid !vote. Jytdog ( talk) 20:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Why are you sticking to google scholar? A simple news search demonstrates plenty of independent sources, some even critical, about the subject. Where are the refs? ( talk) 13:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
You need to actually show the refs. Jytdog ( talk) 20:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Saying you will add refs later is not sufficient to keep an article. Jytdog ( talk) 20:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

*Delete This is basically an advert. I also see COI concerns. 2Joules ( talk) 18:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 ( talk) 15:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 14 July 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 15:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

You'll Never Beat the Irish

You'll Never Beat the Irish (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am nominating the following which are all related to the above:
A Sense of Freedom (album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Across the Broad Atlantic (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As Gaeilge (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Belt of the Celts (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Irish to the Core (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Let the People Sing (album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Profile (Wolfe Tones album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sing Out for Ireland (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spirit of the Nation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Foggy Dew (album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Troubles (Wolfe Tones album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
'Till Ireland a Nation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Same rationale for deletion. Please let me know if I need to do anything else. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar ( talk) 17:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for all of them. probably promotional or fan pages. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep All and improve each through the normal editing process, or assess individually. This massive group nomination shows a deficient WP:BEFORE search for each individual album and for the group collectively. The nominator also missed WP:NEXIST, which states that the current absence of sources in an article is not proof that sources do not exist at all, and that editors should search for them and add them going forward. Of the 13 albums in the nomination, 8 have reviews at AllMusic which can be found easily. The following do not have AllMusic reviews: You'll Never Beat the Irish, As Gaeilge, The Foggy Dew (album), The Troubles (Wolfe Tones album), and 'Till Ireland a Nation. Of that group, The Troubles (Wolfe Tones album) received one possibly useful review that I could find ( [41]), and I could find nothing for the other four. Those five albums could be subjected to this AfD process individually but that is not a good reason to condemn the band's entire discography through this collective nomination. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 18:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all. Per Doomsdayer520, I don't see that WP:BEFORE has been met here. Even if it were found that some individual subjects do not meet WP:NALBUM (to the extent that the content was to be deleted), some of the titles themselves would seem appropriate to at least retain as a redirect (to the extent that the titles would seem appropriate to keep). If we get to that point, The Wolfe Tones discography would seem a viable target. Otherwise, the individual articles should be individually assessed. And, at quick glance, per Doomsdayer520, at least some of the albums listed have been the subject of non-trivial reviews/coverage. Short of evidence of WP:BEFORE on each of them, I don't see how I could support the "delete them all" recommendation. (Separately, I would note that all of these articles were created by the same [now] blocked user. And nominated shortly after that user was blocked. I'm not saying its the case here, and while it sometimes seem like it perhaps should be, "the author is a dick" is not a valid AfD rationale.) Guliolopez ( talk) 20:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 14 July 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. The first two "keep"s don't make much sense. Sandstein 15:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Murder of Mehwish Arshad

Murder of Mehwish Arshad (  | 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:NOTNEWS. This is a recent event that is unlikely to endure. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Why else I would create this if it wasn't notable enough. And I dont think so it fails Wikipedia notability issue. And this is certainly not an ordinary incident. It has a sufficient coverage to be included in the wikipedia. Nauriya Lets Talk 19:14 30 June 2018 (UTC).
I'm sure as the creator you think it's notable enough but this is not about your personal opinion but notability guidelines. For an event to be notable it has to have significant non routine coverage over a period of time. All the sources date from a period of a few days as one would expect of any murder. The last source you have added dates from 10 days ago. This suggests that it has no long lasting notability. There are thousands of murders reported every day we only create articles about notable events. This murder is a tragedy but as it says in WP:NEVENT Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Dom from Paris ( talk) 16:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 08:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Please be clearer about how this helps show that the subject meets NEVENT. Dom from Paris ( talk) 07:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Sad story, but doesn't look like it meets notability requirements at WP:CRIME. Neither the victim nor the perpetrator were notable in their own rights, nor was the crime particularly noteworthy. Also, given that the trial hasn't even taken place and the perpetrator is living and therefore falls under BLP guidelines, the note in WP:CRIME certainly applies: "Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." If this crime turns out to have enduring significance, it may need an article at some point, but at this point it is WP:TOOSOON to assume it will be anything other than an unfortunate criminal event. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 06:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:RAPID. Fairly wide international coverage for a murder in Pakistan. The question as this point is whether such coverage will be LASTING and SUSTAINED - however we can not evaluate this at this without a crystal ball at this point, hence RAPID. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't think RAPID applies here as it says delay for a few days after the event has taken place. This event happened more than a month ago so it is no longer breaking news. NEVENT clearly states that routine events such as crimes are usually not notable unless something further gives them enduring notability. This murder took place over a month ago and no other sources have been added beyond the initial reporting of the crime. Dom from Paris ( talk) 23:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
There are a number of features to this murder that make it notable (e.g. it being filmed). Most murders in Pakistan receive scant local coverage. This one has been receiving international coverage for a few news cycles - for some time after the event. With the coverage so far. There is enough coverage for notability - the question is whether it will be SUSTAINED. Icewhiz ( talk) 02:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
As I said in my reply to the article creator all the sources date from a few days as one would expect from a murder and then dry up. The last one was dated from nearly 3 weeks ago. The only possibly notable element was the fact this was filmed but beyond the voyeuristic element of this murder having been posted on the web and the novelty factor for a source to be able to post actual images of the crime there are no other reasons why this murder got coverage and as all the sources are single reports about the event I cannot see the proof that this was reported over more than 1 news cycle. As per NEVENT it doesn't matter if events were widely reported at the time it is the sustainability that matters. Half of the sources are not signed and come from either "web desk" or "news desk" or some such, and one is signed by a "trainee social media journalist". If there were follow up in depth reports from the same sources this may point to notability but there are none. Dom from Paris ( talk) 06:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Those who cite RAPID tend to ignore the entirety of our notability guidelines for events and their argument falls apart when you analyze it. Saying LASTING cannot be evaluated is another way of telling the closer there is ‘’no’’ lasting impact. Hence, it was too soon to create this article, as the other half of RAPID (“don’t ‘’rush’’ to create articles”) explicitly describes. The notability guidelines also warns us violent crimes are excellent for the media, but the encyclopedia has different criteria we follow with much higher standards for inclusion. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 01:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete does not meet WP:NCRIME & WP:NOTNEWS as per K.e.coffman. All the news covers the actual event intensively for a few days, before apparently ceasing completely by 20th June. No reports of protests or laws changing or regulations being made, or politicians saying anything apart from the usual platitudes. Curdle ( talk) 15:02, 18 July 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. Sandstein 15:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Tapire-iauara

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

Does not appear to meet notability requirements, lacks significant RS coverage. – dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This isn't the first one of these cryptid stubs at AFD, and I generally approach them – fairly or not – with the initial assumption that they will be contrived, pseudoscientific dreck backed up by fringe sources, if anything at all. To my surprise, this appears to be a legitimate folklore topic. The best source is Man, Fishes, and the Amazon, which dedicated a couple of pages to the creature's mythology and folklore. But it does receive attention in other works as well, including an admittedly brief treatment by Jacques Yves Cousteau in Jacques Cousteau's Amazon Journey. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 19:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Apparently the folklore is also mentioned in The Enchanted Amazon Rainforest. [2] It does appear to be actual folklore, but I'm not completely sure there's enough material to justify an article yet. You said there are a couple of pages in Man, Fishes, and the Amazon? -- tronvillain ( talk) 16:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The above are what I can find as well. Not able to look into that book though, so not sure if it's a sufficientlty extensive treatment / provides any material? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 18:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/does-the-blue-wave-start-in-jersey/2018/07/15/db44a0b2-86e4-11e8-8f6c-46cb43e3f306_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.057e31302f61
  2. ^ Smith, Nigel J. H. (1996). The Enchanted Amazon Rain Forest: Stories from a Vanishing World. University Press of Florida. ISBN  978-0-8130-1377-0.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I have added a line, a footnote, and a few sources, and we would likely be able to expand this if someone speaking Portuguese would have a closer look. I don't think we should expect this getting expanded to a potential DYK candidate any time soon, on the other hand I don't see how the encyclopædia is better off by tossing these sourceable stubs out. Paper encyclopædias of my youth and of our forefathers brimmed with these short entries. Sam Sailor 08:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - in light of the new additions notability may have been established and it seems worth giving this some more opportunity. -- tronvillain ( talk) 13:06, 21 July 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 15:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

TriYoga

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

Article is was a linkfarm until I deleted the links here [43], but still lacks decent sources, appears to be promotional in nature, and fails WP:GNG. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 21:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:46, 14 July 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 Ealing#Religion. Sandstein 15:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Ealing Liberal Synagogue

Ealing Liberal Synagogue (  | 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 significant coverage, the one source listed is simply a directory of synagogues addresses. nonon notable Amisom ( talk) 07:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Ealing#Religion, as there isn't actually much detail there (in the current article) - the key couple of lines are already on the redirect target. A WP:BEFORE check didn't come up with anything that provided Sig CoV, there were a few lines in a couple of jewish year books, and a university challenge winner went there, but that seemed to be it. Synagogues fall under WP:NCHURCH which indicates that at least WP:GNG must be met, and potentially WP:NCORP - and neither is, as far as i can tell. Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 13:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 13:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 13:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 13:44, 14 July 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 15:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Hoda Kobeissi

Hoda Kobeissi (  | 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 reality show contestant. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or any other guideline. St Anselm ( talk) 06:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. St Anselm ( talk) 10:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:08, 18 July 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. Basically per A7; can be recreated if there are sources making it notable. For posterity, the entire unsourced content by NeonMerlin was: "Nekojishi is a Taiwanese furry visual novel where the male player character must choose one of three male felid love interests: Lin Hu, a tiger; Shu Chi, a leopard; or Likulau, a ghost clouded leopard.". Sandstein 15:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Nekojishi

Nekojishi (  | 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. Can't find any RS coverage on google. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - bluntly speaking, I was reticent to do any great research on this while on an open router, since I felt explanations would be needed. That said, there did seem to be quite a lot of potentially reliable coverage (in the sense that not all sources writing about it were unreliable). There was also quite a lot of foreign texts that google is not great at translating, so a native speaker might have more luck. Finally, which do we think applies - WP:NBOOK or WP:NGAME? Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Nosebagbear:- I guess NGAME? 'Visual novels' are apparently a video game genre. All I could fine were facebook, wikia, and similar quality sources. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete One-sentence stub that doesn't even claim, much less demonstrate, notability. No prejudice against an article that meets our inclusion criteria being created on this subject if some reliable coverage can be located, or withdrawing this !vote if someone actually fixes the article in the interim, but I see no reason why this shouldn't go the way of my original Utsunomiya Yoritsuna draft. I'm also a bit concerned that when the page was originally PRODded, the PROD was reverted with an apparently nonsense edit summary. @ NeonMerlin: It's been six days -- why have you not gotten around to giving the page any magic love yet? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
That entire article is 3 paragraphs, and can hardly be considered 'significant coverage.' It's more of a blog post/brief mention. Further, is 'hardcore gamer' a RS? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Saying it "doesn't apply to novels or games" seems questionable when it explicitly covers "web content". Whether "web content" covers downloadable Steam games is an open question as far as I can tell, but it definitely covers at least some novels and games that exist only on some guy's website, which is presumably why it doesn't explicitly exclude "novels and games". Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 04:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Also, I'm inclined to agree with ECoV in questioning the reliability of the source: an earlier article on the same topic, by the same author for the same publication, included the bizarre claim that the game brings together Taiwanese elements and aboriginal culture (!? does he mean Australian aboriginal? if he meant Taiwanese aboriginal, that would be redundant...) and appears to have sloppily conflated new Taiwan dollars with USD, since 1,000,000 USD to crowdfund a non-animated visual novel is a phenomenal amount and would raise questions of scamming, while 1,000,000 TWD is not all that impressive despite the language the article used. (Granted, FlyingV.cc might measure things in USD, and the game might be a visual extravaganza of a gaming experience that really did cost that much to make, but...) Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
BTdubs, the best source I could find discussing the game was this, but appears to be more about Taiwanese culture and history in general, with the reporter taking with credulity everything his interviewees said with regard to the content of the game since the game was not apparently out yet. We can't just say the game incorporates elements of Taiwanese aboriginal mythology (as opposed to being "inspired by" it, which usually means there is little to no relation) just because the game's producers said so, since (even per the report in question) said producers knew nothing about said mythology prior to doing research for the game. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:19, 21 July 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. clpo13( talk) 18:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Knee splitter

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

This is likely a hoax. Source is not trustworthy. There is not a single scholarly or historical source that mentions this device. It is similar to the " Spanish Tickler" which had similar sources and ended up being one of the longest lasting Wikipedia hoaxes. BananaBaron ( talk) 03:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ BananaBaron: Sure, provided that reliable sources can be found to identify them as hoaxes (for example see iron maiden). I suspect that it would be better, however, to include both historical and ahistorical ones in separate lists on the same article to help spread explicitly identified good information and to keep the incorrect ones from being added to the historical ones. Spanish tickler, btw, appears to be another example for which the Museo di tortura may be responsible ( 1996..., ping Premeditated Chaos, Fayenatic london) ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 06:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
This is such a bizarre coincidence. I was reading The Better Angels of Our Nature last week, and of all things, it mentioned the Spanish Tickler - with, interestingly, an actual citation to a book older than the article. Unfortunately the book it referenced, Inquisition: A Bilingual Guide To The Exhibition Of Torture Instruments From The Middle Ages To The Industrial Age, wasn't available as an e-book, so I had to suck it up and order the actual book. Shipping is slow so the ETA isn't until late July-early August, but long story short I can check it once I get it for any information about the knee splitter. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Addendum: having a look at the Inquisition book, it looks like it may have been published by one of those torture museums that the www.documentazione.info source above debunks. The rabbit hole just gets deeper. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Yup -- from the cover it's the book of (what is now) the museum's 1983-1987 touring exhibition. [45]. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 08:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
What a waste of $15 >:C ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 07:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 07:43, 15 July 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. The image appears to be of scold's bridles, per [46]. clpo13( talk) 18:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Mask of infamy

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

This is likely a hoax. Source is not trustworthy. There is not a single scholarly or historical source that mentions this device. It is similar to the " Spanish Tickler" which had similar sources and ended up being one of the longest lasting Wikipedia hoaxes. BananaBaron ( talk) 03:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. Insufficient coverage in RS. Catrìona ( talk) 20:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 07:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 07:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
-- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 17:59, 15 July 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 15:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Tianjin Xinwen Guangbo

Tianjin Xinwen Guangbo (  | 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 source that can prove notability of this radio station B dash ( talk) 02:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. We keep radio stations. Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Broadcast_media and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 08:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete actually, a full reading is not "we keep radio stations". It is "we keep radio stations if they can be demonstrated to be notable". And even the full existence is not so demonstrated here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Eastmain is incorrect about how NMEDIA works — we do not routinely keep every article that merely claims that its topic exists as a radio station, but rather radio stations have to meet all four of four conditions to get articles: (1) they originate at least a portion of their own programming schedule in their own studios rather than existing purely as a rebroadcaster of another service, (2) they are licensed by the relevant regulatory authority rather than operating as a Part 15 or pirate station, (3) they are actually on the air and not just an unlaunched construction permit that exists only on paper, and (4) all three of those facts are reliably sourceable. We've had a lot of hoax articles created over the years about radio stations that didn't really exist, or that falsely claimed a license they didn't have or programming they didn't produce — so the notability test for a radio station is not just "the article says it exists", but "the article can be properly sourced as meeting all of the conditions for the notability of a radio station". And this is not properly sourced as meeting any of them. NMEDIA most certainly does not exempt a media outlet from having to be properly referenced to be considered notable. Bearcat ( talk) 18:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fundamentally limited in my BEFORE check by language difficulties, but the following two sources might be helpful to someone who can better use some keywords to seek the info they need. Outline of Tianjin News Communication History & China Radio and Television Yearbook. There aren't any references by name (in the bit I've seen) to let me confidently say that the existence/licenses mentioned actually belong to this specific radio station. Lots of programming mentioned but even less that gives tangential connection. Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:02, 20 July 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. I am closing this early per WP:SNOW.
I can understand the argument for deletion, as it's an argument I've sympathized with in the past. To summarize it, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this means that there are some topics which may be "newsworthy" but not "encyclopedia-worthy". A topic is not necessarily suitable for a standalone article even if it has received significant coverage in a lot of reliable newspapers (the WP:N lead states that an article must both meet WP:GNG and not be excluded by WP:NOT). Instead, to determine encyclopedic notability, we look at things like lasting significance and persistence of coverage.
However, with that being said, these are not things that we can necessarily determine soon after an event takes place. There is a broad consensus here that given the extent and breadth of the coverage about this topic, it is reasonable to keep this article and allow it to develop for the time being. Many editors also argued that the extent and breadth of the coverage indicates that it is more than merely newsworthy, and even those who sympathize with the deletion argument have suggested valid alternatives to deletion, such as merging to Protests against Donald Trump or rewriting the article so that it is more about the events/protests in which the balloon was flown.
For these reasons, I believe that at this time, there is no real chance that this discussion will result in any other outcome besides "keep". For the same reasons, I do not recommend starting something like a merge discussion in the weeks immediately after this discussion is closed. Respectfully, Mz7 ( talk) 01:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Donald Trump baby balloon

Donald Trump baby balloon (  | 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 WP:NOTNEWS flash-in-the-pan. Ridiculous article about a snippet in time. No encyclopedic value whatsoever. Fails WP:GNG over the long-term and is a WP:1E. Suggest Another Believer be trouted for creating it, he knows better. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTFoRUM
There are trouting boundaries. Nobody should be trouted for trouting someone who suggested someone be trouted. That would be over the line. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I draw the boundary in a different place. Some people say "never tweet", which is probably good advice. My personal policy is "never trout". Lepricavark ( talk) 03:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
In the case of the trouter who trouted the trout suggester, I opted for goating. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I can't believe it. You just goated me! The cheek! :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Lepricavark, I must agree. Trouting is not very nice. Of course, speaking ill of trouting is troutable. We must tread lightly, my friend. Let's hope this goes unnoticed. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Not to worry. I am sure that a Trump-related AfD will attract very little attention. Lepricavark ( talk) 04:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Changed to speedy keep as 1E no longer can apply so there is no logic in keeping this open. Anything else should be discussed on the article talk page. -- Fæ ( talk) 18:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
(1) WP:1E may no longer apply, however, that doesn't remove the valid observation of WP:GNG (long-term notability is key for an encyclopedia) as well as WP:NOTNEWS - both of which have been noted by other editors !voting delete in this AfD. (2) Speedy keep is not appropriate, either, as there are delete and merge !votes in this nom discussion. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Artwork, yes. A nice viewpoint that did not occur to me. I should move from Keep to Speedy keep considering that. Thank you, Gerda. :) It's starting to snow at this AfD. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 07:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Snow? Not. Three deletes and two merges so far takes this AfD out of the realm of possibility for a snow close. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
As artwork it's broadly similar to Rubber_Duck_(sculpture) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.187.157 ( talk) 08:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
We really need to add something to NotNews to make people wait at least a week (tomorrow) before nominating something with this rationale. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ L3X1:Maybe people should wait a week before they write the article?-- Rusf10 ( talk) 01:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Spot on, Rusf10. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Oh I believe that full on. 2 wrongs don't make a kite. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Winkelvi: It would have been better if you had proposed renaming the article to Protests against Donald Trump's 2018 visit to London or something like that. The simple fact of the matter is that with hundreds of thousands of attendees each of these protests is independently notable even if the balloon may not be.---  Coffeeand crumbs 02:39, 15 July 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 15:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Mafkarat al Islam

Mafkarat al Islam (  | 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 GNG; the one notable mention is the State Department's criticism. Article is basically unchanged since early 2007. Jprg1966 (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:42, 14 July 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 15:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

TITANIIC

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

TITANIIC is another Replica Titanic project that does not appear to have advanced beyond the proposal stage as there is no formal announcement of a signed shipyard contract. If falls into WP:CRYSTAL as there is no clear fundraising strategy to raise the hundreds of millions of dollars. So it is very unlikely to ever get built.

It has serious WP:VERIFIABILITY citation issues as the inline citations are in Czech. Any English language online references to the project appear to be Wikimirrors. I ran the Czech web sites cited through Google translate and they appear to be interviews with the project leader on sites that have minimal fact checking and/or editorial oversight. To give one example, the machine translation quoted the project leader as claiming that QM2 designer Stephen Payne was working for his project for free. Nor have I found any independent source to support his claim of shipyard STX France having an official business partnership with the TITANIIC project. The organization also fails WP:ORG for notability as it has no coverage beyond the Czech web sites and there is no inherit notability by claiming a connection with a notable naval architect or comparison to the Clive Palmer Titanic II. Finally, there is serious WP:COI by the page creating editor whose name also appears on their web site as a staff employee. Merging this article into Replica Titanic still would not address the verifiability problems. This organization appears to be a dream by a promoter who has built a very nice web site but has no engineering team, realistic fund raising strategy, or idea who would operate the ship. Wikipedia is not a free publicity site to give legitimacy to a fund raising cause. Blue Riband► 00:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: If we were to use steel cut as a criteria for inclusion then an entire category, Cancelled ships of the United States Navy, would be up for AfD. Then do we do about the USS United States (CVA-58) which had its keel laid only to have it broken up when funding was withdrawn? If there is widespread notable press and industry coverage in reliable sources then it would meet WP:Notability regardless of our personal opinions of the project sponsors. Blue Riband► 02:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Steel cut occurs before keel laying; sometimes by many months. (See MSC Seaside for an example.) Comments on the two Princess Kaguya AfDs linked above advocated for keel laying as the trigger for an article, which is more stringent a standard. As to notability: widespread publicity, is not the sole criterion to be met for an article to appear on Wiki; the project must be reasonably certain to take place, per WP:CRYSTAL. Kablammo ( talk) 12:55, 15 July 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_July_14&oldid=1142616196"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE