The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

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

• Delete Being nominated for an award is not enough to meet WP:NFILMMAKER. Lack of reliable source coverage to prove notability. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 04:27, 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. 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

• Delete as per nom. Definate lack of RS for a BLP, and no notability. Curdle ( talk) 07:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - If only we could keep on looks!, Anyway unfortunately no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey2010 ^Talk 17:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep - meets of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man ( talk / en-2) 19:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. XBIZ fan awards str neither well-known nor significant. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 23:42, 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 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

• Keep No actual reason provided as to why he doesn't deserve a wikipedia page. He also has 1,690 results on google's news section. 344917661X ( talk) 20:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep - there are plenty of news sources, and most satisfy Sig Cov and Independent. Reliable seems a higher bar for most to jump, but a reasonable reading through seems to indicate a bare pass. Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:58, 14 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

• Keep. Onision have significant cover with independent media. And he's a major (albeit contriversal) Youtuber https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=onision&rlz=1CAACAO_enGB805&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo_6v7xqPcAhXLA8AKHfd4D8UQ_AUIDCgD&biw=960&bih=932 -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 11:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Query/Comment @ Tyw7 and 344917661X: - does the proposer of an AfD being banned for pure vandalism (in the sense that their account was always a vandalism-only account, as opposed to other reasons for deletion) justify removal of the afd given that there are no other deletion !votes at this point? Nosebagbear ( talk) 12:04, 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

• Comment Also did Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's Alive! (card game). Probably as attempt to have some "good" edits. You could try seeing what other's think at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Not sure if there is a reason for removing this AfD early, might be better to let it run its course. Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 12:31, 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

• Notability isn't established in the current version of the article. Wired (magazine) has a review of Candle Quest, which it says was the original version of this but published later, but that's only one instance of significant coverage and multiple are needed - do others exist? Peter James ( talk) 22:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment Nominator blocked as vandalism only account. Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 12:24, 16 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

• weak keep some reviews can be found at [1]. Some appear to be reliable sources: [2], [3], [4]. It's unclear if these _are_ reliable, and the language barrier makes it hard for me to be certain. Hobit ( talk) 13:30, 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

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

• Keep I think there is enough for WP:MUSICBIO now. Curdle ( talk) 07:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep I am convinced that the sourcing adequately meets GNG. The nominator's rationale is incorrect, as John notes above. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 00:57, 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 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

• Delete. No sources. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC). reply
• Comment There appear to be two almost identical instances of citogenesis related to this article in external websites that really ought to know better, both of which seem to have just taken some of the content of the Snowdrift page (which still contains the story about Triefenbach with no source!) and passed it off as fact. [5] [6] IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 18:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:V due to total lack of reliable independent source coverage. This is true whether it's a hoax or not. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 12:57, 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 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

• Keep per WP:NPLACE -- » Shadowowl | talk 19:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep per same reasoning as Shadowowl. Probably an agricultural community, there would be sources to find in annales with such a focus. Geschichte ( talk) 19:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep - it was once big enough to support its own train station. Bearian ( talk) 20:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• ’’’Keep’’’. No further discussion needed. — Doncram ( talk) 06:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Villages are almost always considered to be notable. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 00:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep per all above !voters above. -- Oakshade ( talk) 01:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep per reasons above. Doremo ( talk) 09:10, 19 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

• Delete as no evidence of any notability, Hasn't won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey2010 ^Talk 19:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wikipedia's most over inflated categories are those for pornographic performers, although I would put the sports categories as a close second. This individual clearly does not merit an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:42, 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 05:42, 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

• Delete Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Accesscrawl ( talk) 14:06, 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 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

• Redirect to Irdning#Sport As a possible search term. Govvy ( talk) 06:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per Govvy - possibile search term but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 07:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per Govvy and GiantSnowman - Plausible search term. – Davey2010 ^Talk 20:46, 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

• Delete lacks sourcing to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:47, 15 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

• Comment: Most of the article merely lists where the musician has performed. References for these around the Internet should be fairly straightforward to come across with some intent. The relevant notability guideline, which would make a stronger case for deletion if it is argued that the criteria are not met, can be accessed here: Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. MB190417 ( talk) 22:41, 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

• Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. -- RaviC ( talk) 18:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete: per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Just like everyone else, he can get an article if and when he wins. Marquardtika ( talk) 22:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete une;lected canidates for office are not notable, there is nothing about Kim that makes him an exception to this rule. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2018; the article is promotional in addition to all the other concerns already mentioned. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2018 There are candidates who are independently notable, but Kim is not at that point based on the sources in the article and available elsewhere. Alansohn ( talk) 14:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete and/or redirect. As always, every candidate in every district is not automatically notable just for having his name on the ballot — he has to win the election in November to be deemed notable as a politician, and qualifies for an article before that only if he can either (a) show and reliably source credible evidence that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before he was a candidate (such as having already held another notable office, or meeting the required notability standard for his prior career), or (b) he can show that his campaign coverage has gone so far beyond everybody else's campaign coverage that he has a credible claim to being special. But neither of those conditions is true here. This can be recreated in November if he wins, since his notability claim will have changed from candidate to officeholder, but nothing here is enough to deem him already notable today. Bearcat ( talk) 16:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to the article above and merge any reasonable information into it, as per usual. SportingFlyer talk 21:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and the WP:NPOL. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep or Redirect. He's not automatically notable for having his name on the ballot, he's notable because there's a new story about him in a major publication every week. Just found him again in the Washington Post. ^[1] If the fact that most mentions are in the context of the election means it's not noteworthy enough to have a page, it should redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2018. Lebanonman19 ( talk) 15:23, 16 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

• Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2018. Most candidates for elected office are notable only in the context of their election. Any relevant information about the campaign can be added to the election page (and I do think that there is usually room for expansion in the appropriate election article to describe the candidate and their main [reliably sourced] campaign themes). -- Enos733 ( talk) 05:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect since he is only notable for being a candidate, but there is a shot he'll win come November, and why waste this start? ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 17:40, 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. 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

• Delete as no evidence of any notability, Hasn't won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey2010 ^Talk 19:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete another article on a person who does not meet the notability requirements for pornographic performers. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep - meets of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man ( talk / en-2) 19:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Neither "Vixen of the Year" nor "Favorite Anal Starlet" meets the well known/significant award standard. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 23:40, 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. 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

• Delete No evidence of notability in the article and nothing found in a Google search. Alansohn ( talk) 14:31, 15 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

• Delete Fails GNG ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete, nothing remarkable or notable. Reads like a PR bio. Kierzek ( talk) 19:01, 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) 20:40, 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

• Speedy Delete I'm laughing that someone thought this needed an article. Useless, unnecessary, and a poorly written article anyawy. Ultimograph5 ( talk) 16:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator. Poorly written, not sourced, and no reason established why this article is necessary or important. Tillerh11 ( talk) 18:54, 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

• Delete - Terribly sourced to Youtube videos, borderline unreadable and incomprehensible. Almost WP:A1 level. Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete: fails WP:LISTN and WP:LISTCRITERIA. Article created by an editor who seems to be a SPA for everything to do with Vulfpeck, the first act named in this list. The worst thing is, this list doesn't even include " Trans-Europe Express", surely the most influential train rhythm song of all (and the one song whose train rhythm origins can actually be reliably verified)... Richard3120 ( talk) 16:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I suspect that this topic is fancruft among a small esoteric group of enthusiasts. If someone from that community had a convincing reason for why this list is worthy of an encyclopedia per WP:LISTCRITERIA, I might buy it, but I can figure out no such rationale myself. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 16:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete ... Dear god!, Fails every policy on this project, Kill it with fire. – Davey2010 ^Talk 17:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete. Keeping this article is a total waste of valuable encyclopedia space. It's original research, poorly sourced and a list based on a totally non-notable topic. Ajf773 ( talk) 22:43, 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

• Keep I can't think of a reason why a national under-23 team wouldn't pass GNG. They were involved in qualification stages of the AFC U-23 Championship in 2015 and 2017. [11] An absence of references in the article does not necessarily equate to a lack of available references. Nzd (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Nzd. Giant Snowman 08:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep U-23 teams are notable. No reason to think this one is any different. What a waste of time. Smartyllama ( talk) 15:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep U-23 teams are notable. Needs expanding not deleting. Fenix down ( talk) 12:54, 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 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

• Keep - Article needs improvements. But from what I can tell the singer is notable per WP:GNG. Also per Mr. Brains rationale. BabbaQ ( talk) 10:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Mr. Brain, BabbaQ, could you please show how he is individually notable apart from the band? Richard3120 ( talk) 13:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Meshuggah perhaps? on his own, he does not appear to meet GNG. I found a couple of excerpts via google books, but they were all passing mentions as lead singer of Messhuggah. There was one here of a couple of paragraphs, but it was about his voice/the bands treatment of one particular song. No biographical material at all. There is random stuff around, but it all seems to be youtube interviews, or fan wiki stuff, so not much RS. I am assuming the two above editors werent able to find any either, as they didnt post anything, or add any to the article. Curdle ( talk) 13:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Meshuggah per Curdle. I'm also unable to find anything in independent sources other than trivial mentions specifically related to the band. -- bonadea contributions talk 08:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete : Subject lacks independent notability. Any material worth saving may very well be tranferred over to the band article. Notability is not inherited. It's not passed around band members either. - The Gnome ( talk) 09:07, 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 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

• Delete as per nom. Bondegezou ( talk) 22:11, 15 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

• Delete per nomination. Cannot locate significant evidence of Wikinotability. On an altogether different issue, I agree with some commentary above insinuating subject's artistic merit. - The Gnome ( talk) 09:10, 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

• I haven't looked into this enough to vote on it yet, but this sounds like a WP:OR issue. I could attest to a lot of things about my own community and institutions within it, but without reliable sources to back it up, it can't be included in the encyclopedia. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 11:59, 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

• India Square is a part of Bombay, they are not one and the same. The creator of the article User:Irehdna should be informed of this discussion and given a chance to express their viewpoint. Castncoot ( talk) 23:08, 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

• Merge / Redirect to Marion Section or India Square as the name "Bombay" to refer to the neighborhood isn't baked by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn ( talk) 18:23, 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

• Delete per both WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Only one unreliable source cited. Incumbent is not even officially known and won't be until November. Having this article before then is pure speculation. Tillerh11 ( talk) 18:58, 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

• Delete Usually we don't have articles on the election after next. Number 5 7 19:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Four years out is an eternity in politics and it's an article based on just two presumed candidates. We don't yet have the results of the 2018 election. We are an encyclopedia and new articles should have sufficient content to provide useful information. Blue Riband► 02:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• This is no different than having a presidential election page four years in advance. Come on, people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.171.38 ( talk) 15:15, 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 15:49, 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

• Delete Am I missing something here? Am I overlooking some kind of historical significance or something? It looks like it's just a run-of-the-mill truck stop. It fails WP:ORGCRIT. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:03, 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

• Delete article does not establish any kind of notability and is not well sourced. Tillerh11 ( talk) 19:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTDIR and WP:GNG. This is hardly a major shopping complex, it's a service station with a few shops attached. Ajf773 ( talk) 23:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not notable enough to have an article and what is here is tending towards trivia. Dunarc ( talk) 18:48, 15 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

• Merge to M5 motorway; it's a valid topic and there's verifiable information that a red link or redirect to the current version of the target article would not provide. Peter James ( talk) 15:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - run of the mill service area. Bearian ( talk) 20:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Would prefer to merge into one huge article but as one doesn't exist I guess the only option is deletion, Anyway non notable service station, Fails GNG. – Davey2010 ^Talk 20:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. See WP:ROADOUTCOMES, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination). This issue has been discussed extensively in the past and has been decided to keep all British motorway service areas. They are established by statute and are major complexes. They are not just "truck stops". It is not productive to delete a single example, when there are articles for all of them. See Category:Motorway service areas (United Kingdom). -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:31, 18 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

• Speedy Strong Delete under G11; no established WP:N and created by a known spammer. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Edit: After reviewing G11, I would agree it's not G11 material, but it still should be deleted. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete per WP:G11. Delete. Not notable. Absolutely no reliable sources. Just look at the author's entry ( User:Westripwow) in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WilliamMartin91/Archive to confirm intent. Newslinger ( talk) 13:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete, non-notable author and no significant coverage of the book itself. Note: Speedy deletion criterion G11 does not apply since the text of the article is clearly neutral in tone. Regards So Why 16:59, 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

• Weak Delete on this one. I tend to lean on the inclusionist side, but reviewing Wikipedia:Notability (films), this one doesn't seem to quite cut the mustard for notability; India is a film-producing nation, but there is no significant coverage of the topic, and the article itself doesn't do a good job establishing WP:N. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:37, 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

• Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, tag with {{ unreferenced}}, and work on improving it. It does indeed meet WP:V per DuckDuckGo. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES now specifically states that secondary schools "are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist" and "WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" following a RfC. Nick-D ( talk) 23:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • WP:NOTPAPER This article has been around since 2008. To be swift and to the point, what is the point of even contributing to Wikipedia if essentially a no-consensus vote (the RFC in question) puts hours worth of work on the chopping block? I wouldn't. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:24, 15 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
  • No one is suggesting that the school doesn't exist, and that is not an official website. Nick-D ( talk) 23:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • D'oh, community website. Anyway there should be news articles about the schools. Here's some about their art students showing in Art Express [14] There's also a famous cricketer Don Bradman who went to Bowral High back when it was just a secondary school and before they established the new location in 1929/1930; he scored his first century at age 12 while at the school; sourced by multiple books and news articles [15]. [16] Also MP Jai Rowell is an alum there. [17] AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 03:23, 15 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
  • Comment Thank you, that's the point I was trying to make. The school does not seem notable at all. It seems like it it just a school at a very small town and not notable (basing off that the article is unreferenced at all. ❂ string DTD❂ 02:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • If it's just a concern about very small town, then you can redirect to Bowral until more details are written up beyond the paragraphs or so that describe the school systems back then. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 03:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Details are now added. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:34, 18 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

• Keep - there are more than enough sources cited here to show notability. The last RfC on school notability said virtually nothing...even its proposer disavowed it in his RfA. All it said was you couldn't claim OUTCOMES alone as a reason to keep. However, that too has been completely ignored. Guidelines here are dictated by the community, not some bureaucratic action like an RfC. Forever, the notability of secondary schools has been weighed against a standard much closer to WP:PLACE than WP:ORG. We have an RfC roughly every two years on this subject, and no matter the outcome, the standard at AfD remains most accurately reflected by WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. In short, actions speak much louder than words. John from Idegon ( talk) 18:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep - it meets all 10 of my standards for high schools. Bearian ( talk) 20:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep obviously. — Doncram ( talk) 12:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep not per SCHOOLOUTCOMES which is now considered an invalid reason, But Keep per the sources in the article which to me confirms the schools notability, IMHO meets GNG. – Davey2010 ^Talk 13:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment, not sure why some editors above are referring to Bowral as "very small town", this is subjective and irrelevant to afd discussions, anyway, at 12,949 it is in the top 100 towns/cities by population in Australia, so it is not (Yoo Hoo, Go Bowral!:)). Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:44, 18 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

• Keep per above passes WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 08:17, 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 15:48, 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

• Delete. Violates WP:V. I would be willing to reconsider if reliable sources are presented. However, as written, and the lack of verifiability aside, it is unclear how the subject is notable. -- Kinu ^t/ _c 15:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete: An unreferenced article written in a non-encyclopaedic tone. No evidence of attained notability provided or found. AllyD ( talk) 09:22, 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 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

• Redirect to Thelonious Monk - Criteria at WP:NALBUM not met. Zingarese talk · contribs 02:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Keep With Hobbes Goodyear's listed sources, the recording demonstrably meets WP:NALBUM. It will need serious cleanup and expansion, however. Zingarese talk · contribs 20:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Finding refs is hampered because this material has been re-released under a variety of titles, and because much potentially valuable periodical and book coverage is not visible online. Still, there is enough to make the case: AllMusic review, New Yorker review by Richard Brody, an item on the 2017 re-release in Le Monde, a review in the French magazine Télérama, a review in The Independent, 8/10 rating from Scott Yanow in his book Bebop, a brief description from NPR of the concert, and a much lengthier description by the jazz producer and writer Raymond Horrocks, who attended the concert. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 03:24, 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

• Keep - No need delete it. There is Expert opinion of the Expert Council of the Ministry of Justice for the Altai Republic, the very independent government source. From articles on new religious movements or, for example, living people, one should not require references to dictionaries, etc. Another genre. And the subject is actual for Wikipedia. DayakSibiriak ( talk) 03:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC) — DayakSibiriak ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Delete Fails WP:NORG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~ 10 ^Eleventeen 20:36, 6 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

• Keep. General consensus has long been that verifiable secondary schools are notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep: a verified high school; sourcing is sufficient for a stub. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a verified high school. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~ 10 ^Eleventeen 20:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete as lacking significant coverage in independent sources, and hence failing WP:GNG. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• On second thoughts, a redirect to Baguiati would work as an alternative to deletion. Cordless Larry ( talk) 05:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of truly independent sources. The Banner  talk 23:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Verifiable Senior Secondary Indian school. WP:GNG does not count here as per WP:BIAS.-- DBig Xray 19:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • As far as I know every article is judged on its own merits. To my opinion, the keeping of school articles that can not prove their own notability, is a systematic bias towards schools... The Banner  talk 23:01, 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

• Delete - Article lacks notability and proper references. Yashthepunisher ( talk) 05:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. We keep high schools. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 15 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

• Calling all bystanders : Someone's trying to delete an article about a school!.. I kid you not!.. Come and join in the fun. - The Gnome ( talk) 09:14, 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.