Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 27 July 29 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Szzuk ( talk) 07:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Clifford Braimah

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

During discussions at this article's DYK nomination, as well as WT:DYK, some concerns were raised if Braimah was notable per our guidelines. A search reveals some coverage about him, mostly routine coverage such as news of his appointment, and statements by him. There also appears to be some coverage about an alleged plot to unseat him as head of Ghana Water. He also appears to have won an award, but it is unsure if the said award is notable in Ghana (the magazine that gave it, Humanity Magazine International, does not have an article). In the interest of the DYK nomination moving forward, as it has stalled, this AfD is to test for consensus on whether or not Braimah meets our notability guidelines, or if the coverage on him is significant enough. This nomination is procedural and I am neutral on his notability. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 23:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 23:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 23:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 23:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ SportingFlyer: The article states that he was appointed by a Minister, so he was technically government appointed. WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES are vague on the matter of if a position parallel to him is inherently notable: WP:POLOUTCOMES (an essay, but still) argues that only cabinet-level appointed officials are generally considered inherently notable, but the page also has this relevant quote: "Sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable, especially if they have had otherwise notable careers." So the main topic for discussion here is if the coverage on him is enough to establish notability (and I personally am slightly leaning towards a weak yes, though of course that's for this discussion to decide). Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 23:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I don't know why you pinged me, except that I inserted the above search template into the DYK nomination template after your comments. This could have been done on that template, and this AFD is over-kill. I don't live in that part of the world, and I don't have the knowledge to determine this. In the United States, where I live, appointed positions on any level of government are notable. Anything else is a civil service job where you have to fill out an application. Truly, I don't know why you opened this and just didn't keep it in one place at DYK. — Maile ( talk) 23:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I started an AfD at the suggestion of BlueMoonset, and a previous discussion of the subject on WT:DYK also suggested an AFD. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 23:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Please see WP:FORUMSHOP. You already had a response on the DYK template that this person is notable. Your response to that was to open this AFD. — Maile ( talk) 01:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Maile, if your intent at the DYK template was to say that the person was notable, it was not at all clear to me. I saw it as showing a tool for investigating a person's notability (or topic's), not as a statement that the tool would show that they were. DYK is a far from ideal place to determine notability, while AfD is the definitive one. Can you please tell me which response at the template said the person was notable, because I just don't see it, and since I'm the one who urged Narutolovehinata5 to bring this here so there could be a determination of notability, that would mean that I'm the forum shopper, and such was in no way my intent. (The DYK nominator seems to have washed their hands as regards to notability.) BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
It appears I wasn't seeing the updated version of the nomination page at the main DYK nominations page for some reason when I posted the above, so I didn't realize Mary Mark Ockerbloom had posted a comment about notability; the latest thing I saw was Crosstemplejay's month-and-a-half-old comment. My apologies. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP. Repeating my quoted material from the DYK: "Regarding notability: There are news articles from at least a dozen different sources quoted on the page, and in at least eight of those Clifford Braimah is specifically mentioned in the headline, either by name or as the Managing Director of the GWCL, or as the GWCL Boss. I think he'd pass a notability argument." Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 22:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC) To expand on my reasoning, that he's mentioned in the headline suggests to me that he is a major figure in the story; 12 sources could pass tests for multiple, secondary, and independent. I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough about Ghana to know which ones are reliable, but I think he's close to meeting the basic criteria. FURTHER, as noted above by SportingFlyer, I think he would pass via WP:NPOL as a politician holding national office -- he's a political appointee to the head of the national water supplier. South Africa is dealing with significant issues around water, cf. UNDESA: it's an important position. Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 03:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Request for close - It appears this AFD was opened as a result of miscues in good faith communications. Can an uninvolved editor please close this out? The conversation should resume on the DYK template where it started. — Maile ( talk) 10:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I closed this as nomination withdrawn, per a comment on my talk page this is not the case. Szzuk ( talk) 16:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
To clarify, this was not a proxy nomination on my behalf, and I had not "withdrawn" the nomination in my comment above, just apologized for not having been aware of the changed state at DYK. I have no opinion on the AfD's continuation here. BlueMoonset ( talk) 16:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Considering the discussion here and on the nomination page, I think it would be for the best to simply withdraw this AfD and let the DYK nomination run its course. The DYK nomination has been unfairly stalled for quite a while now and it's time for it to move forward. Szzuk, please do the honors. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 00:25, 30 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 08:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Bailey Stenson

Bailey Stenson (  | 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've thought about it for a while, and I think Stenson does not meet WP:NCOLLATH for several reasons.

  1. Even though she was part of a national championship team, she has not won a national award as an individual student-athlete, only two honorable mention all- Pac-10 Conference honors. Thus, she fails NCOLLATH criterion 1.
  2. Regarding criterion 3 about "national media attention as an individual", she has been featured in ESPN and The Oklahoman for surviving leukemia - but that is practically the extent of her "national media attention" from her college career. Surviving leukemia is not in itself sufficient for WP:GNG. Arbor to SJ ( talk) 21:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 23:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:16, 29 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 08:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

2018 Oceania Wrestling Championships

2018 Oceania Wrestling Championships (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Boilerplate article about this year's individual running of a sporting event. There's no evidence being shown here that the event is notable at all -- there isn't even a basic overview article about the Oceania Wrestling Championships at all, and the only source being cited here is the event's own self-published website about itself rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about it in media. And apart from a single sentence stating that the event "will" happen (except that the date on which it will happen is now two months into the past), the only other content here is still-blank medal tables. I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can show some evidence that this event is actually notable enough for an article, but there's literally no value in holding onto it in this form if nobody's actually updating it with properly sourced results at all. Bearcat ( talk) 21:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No information that the overarching event is notable, let alone this years. If it were a notable concept, I'd consider userfying per WP:CRYSTALBALL, but it isn't. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - There is an article stating that the event did exist. Is this worthy of being an article on its own as its hasn't been worked on it. To be honest I don't know on that front so I am going to stay neutral in this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Waralee Saensong

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

Subject not shown to meet the notability guidelines. This has been repeatedly userfied, and disputed by the creator, resulting in a minor move war. I'm thus bringing it to AfD in order to settle the matter at a proper discussion venue. Paul_012 ( talk) 21:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: She was certainly in the squad, but did not play a game. I expect her to reach the notability threshhold some time in the next few years, but she isn't there yet. St Anselm ( talk) 00:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Do Not Delete Request: I see that there are similar pages too. For eg, Annemijn Thomson has a page without playing any First Class/List-A/Twenty20 match. She was also a part of international squad but did not get a chance t play any international match. I want somebody to guide me by providing logical rationale on why one page is allowed to stay, whereas the other one is being nominated for deletion. Regards, Vikram Maingi ( talk) 04:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and StAnselm. For Thomson, she played in the 2015 T20 Qualifier, which meets the last point of #2 of WP:NCRIC. The article creator has shown time and time again that they don't understand WP:NCRIC, creating multiple n/n article, despite being told on their talkpage not to do so. I think the next logical step, if this continues, would be a topic-ban. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I do not want to increase/waste the time and effort of all and sundries. All I requested for was for the rationale for allowing page-creation of Annemijn Thomson, when this person too hasn't played any matches. I assure the Wikipedia team that I will adhere to the notability criteria. Good that Lugnuts commented on this. I have asked this question directly on his talk page as well. Regards, Vikram Maingi ( talk) 09:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Without dragging this out, you DO increase/waste the time and effort of all and sundries with your article creations. Either they don't meet the notabiltiy requirements, or they are of an incredibly poor quality, that need the time and effort of other editors to clean up to a minimum quality you'd expect of a new article. I strongly suggest you take this advice and avoid content creation of living people and focus on other areas of work. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Sorry for the argument: I still don't understand why the page Annemijn Thomson should stay why Waralee Saensong should be deleted. Both the pages are of ditto quality. Both the persons haven't played any international match. Thanks, Vikram Maingi ( talk) 12:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I've already explained why in this AfD. Just more proof that you simply don't understand what you are doing. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Point accepted Lugnuts. Team may delete this page or else move it to my User space. And trust me, I want to learn from your good things and improve the pages.Thanks, Vikram Maingi ( talk) 13:51, 29 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 Mercedes Lackey bibliography#The Dragon Jousters. This did not need an AfD. Sandstein 08:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The Dragon Jousters series

The Dragon Jousters series (  | 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 since 2009. Article creator inactive since 2013. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing WP:RS either for the series or for any of the novels in the tetralogy, and I smell WP:OR. I propose not delete but blank and redirect (keeping the categories) to Mercedes Lackey bibliography#The Dragon Jousters as {{ R to section}}. Narky Blert ( talk) 20:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following pages relating to members of the tetralogy, with the same recommendation, for the reasons given above:

Joust (novel) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alta (novel) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Signed) Narky Blert ( talk) 21:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Agree with assessment and redirects for the reasons stated above. Auldhouse ( talk) 13:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 20:55, 28 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 nomination withdrawn -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 12:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

RCS La Chapelle

RCS La Chapelle (  | 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(also on frwiki) football club which fails WP:NCLUB. withdrawn » Shadowowl | talk 20:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 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. AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Waffenamt codes

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

Nazi fancruft marked as unsourced since 2013. Fails WP:IINFO, WP:V and WP:N. Merging to Waffenamt is inadvisable because the content is unsourced and of no discernible significance. Sandstein 19:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 12:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

World Aid Organization

World Aid Organization (  | 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 non profit organication. Googled both "World Aid Organization" and "Healthnovations International". Bbarmadillo ( talk) 19:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:23, 28 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 Somwarpet. Sandstein 08:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Sandeepany English Medium School

Sandeepany English Medium 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)

Orphan, per WP:DEL#8 and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Name of this school is an issue, having come across multiple different names, such as Sandipany English Medium school and Sandeepani High School in different locations. After checking an archive of the only given citation in history, http://eproc.hpcl.co.in/Product/ReportAction?eventFlag=RegVendorPublic (archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20130103013850/http://eproc.hpcl.co.in/Product/ReportAction?eventFlag=RegVendorPublic), there is no mention of this school under this name. This citation only provides a list of enrolled vendors - a company short name, company name and address. Steven (Editor) ( talk) 18:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Somwarpet. I'm seeing multiple Sandeepany/Sandeepani/Sandi Pini schools that offer secondary education, and it is not clear which ones this one refers to. There's one called Sandeepani High School that occasionally has some outstanding student scoring on exams. [1] [2] and one for Sandeepani International School: [3] [4] Also Sandi Pini [5] With the school being private, it is even more confusing to verify. I did find this Datanet document that discusses a Sandeepany English Medium School [6] but again that's a passing mention. A more specific address would be helpful. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:58, 30 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 08:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Phyllis Brown

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable musician. Quis separabit? 18:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:56, 28 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 both consensus and author request. No point in keeping open longer. ansh 666 18:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Shiksha Matabadul

Shiksha Matabadul (  | 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:NMODEL.Only notable for one event. Created by a person who appeared to be affiliated with this pagents. Anyway no evidence of notability, Fails WP:GNG. Akhiljaxxn ( talk) 18:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete: fails WP:NMODEL & WP:GNG; concur with @Akhiljaxxn. Quis separabit? 18:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:59, 28 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. Guy ( Help!) 23:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Ibrahim ibrahim

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

Author of a number of fringe self-published books. [7], no discussion of him anywhere I can find. True he's used in another fringe book as a source [8] Books are either Kindle, Calendar Publications which is obviously his, or "MagnetElectro Publications" - MagnetElectro is the username of the editor who created the article. No evidence of notability WP:GNG or WP:PERSON. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I guess I should link his website. [9] Doug Weller talk 18:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
It appears to be an early use of metres. Certes ( talk) 20:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks, Certes, good catch. It sure is an early use. Maybe the ancient Egyptians were able to foresee the metre would be introduced round about the French Revolution. Bishonen | talk 21:02, 28 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 08:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Shadow Slasher

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

According to Marvel Wikia this character only appears three times; does not meet WP:GNG. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 17:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:59, 29 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 08:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Shatterstar (Kree)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. A Google search pulls up mostly results for the other Shatterstar character. In addition, the page is only linked to by seven articles, and the character appears a mere 12 times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 17:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:59, 29 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 08:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Vincente Cimetta

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

Character does not meet WP:GNG. Different versions of Cimetta listed on Marvel Wikia only appear ten times altogether. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 17:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 22:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:56, 29 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 09:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Phillip Ozdemir

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

Was deprodded without rationale or improvement. While accomplished, searches do not turn up enough indepth sourcing from independent reliable references to show they meet WP notability criteria as per WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 17:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NOTRESUME. This is a horrific mess. Pardon the analogy, but it needs to be nuked. The subject might be notable for one book that got reviews, but the rest is so much mindless trivia and egotistical naval-gazing that the article needs to be started from scratch. Bearian ( talk) 16:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America 1000 15:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

My Companions in the Bleak House

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 17:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 17:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Sedmikostelí

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 17:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 17:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Andrew Davidson and Vejvančický. James500 ( talk) 22:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect pending someone introducing some accurate, verifiable information that isn't already included in Miloš Urban. Having a one-sentence article that only duplicates a fraction of the relevant information in the main article is unhelpful. No comment on notability or potential to become more than a useless non-article. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I have expanded this article from the source provided by Andrew Davidson. To be honest I would have no problems with the article being merged into Miloš Urban for the time being, as they are both short articles. Urban is a pretty significant author in CR though, and there is no doubt a proper article could be written about him; I will try to get round to it at some point. At any rate, deletion nominations for books such as this by authors such as this without due process are fairly cynical, and I daresay there are better ways to approach it. Jdcooper ( talk) 22:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America 1000 01:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Rana jesen

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 18:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 18:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:47, 28 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. North America 1000 01:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The Eleventh Commandment (1970 film)

The Eleventh Commandment (1970 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 18:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 18:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:46, 28 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) Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Doći i ostati

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 18:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 18:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Love and Some Swear Words

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - a Google search for this article does not throw up many results that are actually about the film. The article itself is very brief, and does not supply much information other than this is a Croatian film. Vorbee ( talk) 17:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 18:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 18:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete – Unless the article has some significant addition to it, there is no reason at all to keep a one- or two-sentence article. Less than a stub, doesn't receive many page views. Redditaddict69 ( talk) 14:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Wölf. Nationally released film by Croatia Film and was reviewed by the English language and American Daily Variety [21] demonstrates passing WP:NFILM not to mention directed by very notable director with just as notable actors. Being a stub is not a proper reason to delete. Stubs of notable topics are always better than no articles. -- Oakshade ( talk) 04:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This is a close call, and in other circumstances I would have closed it as no consensus. However, we also have to consider WP:FRINGE, which directs us to require stronger sourcing on topics that deviate from the scholarly mainstream. Specifically, if an idea is widespread but questionable, we need out-of-bubble, critical sources to conform with WP:NPOV. With that in mind, I have weighted the argument that there is a lack of in-depth scholarly coverage over that of notability because it appears in a variety of less reliable sources. –  Joe ( talk) 16:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Heretic's fork

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

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

  • Very uncomfortable keep, or perhaps a merge/redirect to a list. No weight should be given to Reston's 1994 usage as it is fictionalised history. This is evidence for 1983 -- also as "forcella dell'eretico"", which predates Golub's 1985 work, but there seems to be no evidence online for anything earlier. "La horquilla del hereje" is a 1990 work by Roberto Márquez (painter) -- no prior use of that term found. Given it's use as an inspiration and other coverage, there's enough for some kind of retention (perhaps with careful selection of tone and attribution). Are there any RS casting which cast doubt on its actual existence/use, and that can be quoted? ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 07:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 07:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- The material listed by other contributors to this debate needs to be compiled into the article. Even if the 1983 and 1985 items were the equivalent of a HOAX, this seems to have taken on a life of its own. The article needs to be amended to imply that the subject is at best of dubious historicity. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Presumably AllyD and H3O + OH- haven't found any better sources than the ones they gave (if they had, why would they omit them?), and I'm not finding any evidence of reliability-and-usefulness for any of those sources. "this is evidence for 1983" is [23], which is a catalogue of the holdings of a museum: without plenty of details, we can't assume that the authors refer to the concept discussed in this article. The Beard Book publication was already debunked as untrustworthy. The other book is published by Edizioni Savine. I've logged into ProQuest Oasis ( documentation) and searched for the publisher, and I can't find a single Edizioni Savine book in their offerings (even a publisher search for savine found nothing relevant). Oasis lists millions of new and old titles in print and e, and this publisher's complete absence from their listings (even print, which the First-sale doctrine allows ProQuest to sell without publisher permission) makes me guess that ProQuest does not believe that ES titles will be of interest to academic libraries. I'd need a good deal of convincing before I believed that such a publisher could be considered reliable. EUP journals are reliable, but we need a reliable source that connects the heretic's fork and the pié de amigo before we use an EUP journal talking only about the latter. PS, I've just checked Edizioni Savine in YBP Gobi ( documentation), which I generally prefer over Oasis because of its search interface and (often) more comprehensive results, and it too returned 0 results. PPS, the Golub artwork is not a reliable source for the actual existence of such a torture device; it could have been his imagination. The photo is legitimate, but the hosting museum doesn't exist anymore; museums can be operated by individuals or small groups (see the final paragraph of David Yeiser House, for example), so without evidence that this was a solid professional museum, I'm highly reluctant to trust it. Nyttend ( talk) 03:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - On the fence on this one. There looks to be several mentions of this in many publications over the years, but I've yet to find a single in-depth source. It's mentioned at List of methods of torture, but not such that it would make sense to merge as that list stands. Maybe good to turn that list into something a little more substantial that can support this sort of edge case... --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete: As I said in my earlier comments, enough pre-Wikipedia usage can be found to challenge any idea of this having been placed as a WP:HOAX article. However, my searches in various places have failed to locate solid sources to provide positive support for an article about a C16-17 inquisitor’s object – and even when I was confident of finding such, I was still expecting to finish by recommending merger into a list of instruments, much as Rhododendrites suggests. Alternatively, following the suggestion by Hydronium Hydroxide and Peterkingiron, the article might cover the topic as a cultural idea, such as in the Golub artwork, but would I think need to avoid original research by citing a source which had already investigated the topic in those terms. All in all, I wouldn’t be uncomfortable with a "no consensus" outcome, but can’t make a strong positive argument for retention. AllyD ( talk) 18:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

AIR Faizabad

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

Article pertains to the city-level affiliate of a wider radio channel, acting primarily as a translator station, and as such would lack notability according to WP:BROADCAST. A quick Google search does not point to notability on its own.   Shobhit102 | talk  03:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   Shobhit102 | talk  08:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   Shobhit102 | talk  08:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and/or redirect. Broadcasting does not work in all countries the same way it works in Canada or the United States — in the vast majority of countries, radio and television networks do not have any such thing as local "affiliates" that originate any local programming separately from the parent network, but rather they operate exclusively as a single national service with a bunch of rebroadcasters that have no local programming variations. North American broadcasting is the exception, not the rule, to how broadcast networks operate in most countries. So the notability test is not passed just by saying the word "affiliate" — it's passed by showing reliable source evidence that the station actually originates some local programming. But there's no evidence of that being shown here at all. I'm not an expert in how to figure that out when it comes to India, but that's precisely why the claim has to be sourced, and not just asserted as possible, before it actually becomes valid grounds for an article about a radio transmitter — we've had lots of articles attempted about radio "stations" that don't meet that criteria, but actually exist solely as rebroadcasters of other services or networks, so proof that a radio station actually passes that condition has to be shown and not just presumed. NMEDIA most certainly does not exempt a media outlet from having to be properly referenced to be considered notable. Bearcat ( talk) 18:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Nongcun Guangbo

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

No source that can prove notability of this radio station B dash ( talk) 02:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 14:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 14:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. We do not routinely keep every article that merely claims that its topic exists as a radio station, but rather radio stations have to meet all four of four conditions to get articles: (1) they originate at least a portion of their own programming schedule in their own studios rather than existing purely as a rebroadcaster of another service, (2) they are licensed by the relevant regulatory authority rather than operating as a Part 15 or pirate station, (3) they are actually on the air and not just an unlaunched construction permit that exists only on paper, and (4) all three of those facts are reliably sourceable. We've had a lot of hoax articles created over the years about radio stations that didn't really exist, or that falsely claimed a license they didn't have or programming they didn't produce — so the notability test for a radio station is not just "the article says it exists", but "the article can be properly sourced as meeting all of the conditions for the notability of a radio station". And this is not properly sourced as meeting any of them. NMEDIA most certainly does not exempt a media outlet from having to be properly referenced to be considered notable. Bearcat ( talk) 18:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I gave links above that show that the station satisfy the conditions you mentioned, perhaps you should check those first? Hzh ( talk) 09:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Those aren't reliable sources. They all represent the self-published content of the station and the company that owns it, and none of them represent independent coverage about it in sources independent of it. Bearcat ( talk) 16:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
There are so many sources that mention various aspects of the station - e.g. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] I'm not sure what there is to question about the station. Hzh ( talk) 21:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Every web page that exists with a radio station's name in it is not automatically a reliable or notability-supporting source. Almost every single one of those links is some form of primary sourcing, such as blogs, press releases from the company itself and/or organizations that it's directly affiliated with, or social networking platforms — which are types of sources that do not count as support for notability. Exactly zero of them represent the kind of reliable sourcing that is valid support for notability. Literally the only one that looks like it might be a real reliable source completely fails to mention this station at all — it's just very general coverage of a company which I'm presuming owns this station if you're adding it here, but neither it nor this article actually says that company owns this station at all. You're not showing the kind of solid sources that it takes to make a radio station notable — you're showing the kind of weak sources, mostly its own self-created content about itself, that don't make a radio station notable. Bearcat ( talk) 21:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Blanket dismissal of such diverse sources is pointless because it is not clear on what basis you are dismissing them. The first one for example looks at the station in quite a bit of detail, and I haven't a clue as to why you dismiss it. Cumulatively they do suggest that the station is significant. Hzh ( talk) 21:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I dismiss the first source because it's not a reliable source media outlet; it's a press release distribution and advertising platform on which companies can and do freely redistribute their own self-written information about themselves. Unreliable and self-created sources cannot add up to "cumulative notability"; only reliable sources can do that. Bearcat ( talk) 22:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
And you offered no evidence that it's press release, nor for any of the others. Hzh ( talk) 23:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
And here's more [40] [41] [42] [43] Hzh ( talk) 23:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
A person can plainly verify that it's a press release, and not real journalism in a real media outlet, just by (a) looking at it, and (b) reading our article about the website it's on. I don't need to "prove" anything that's already self-evident. And these four new sources — three glancing namechecks of its existence in books that aren't about it and one academic dissertation about the general phenomenon of rural broadcasting in which this radio station's name fails to appear at all — are not notability boosters either. You're failing to understand the very real distinction between a source that is reliable and notability-building, and a source which is not — "reliable sourcing" is not the same thing as "any web page that exists at all". Bearcat ( talk) 17:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:42, 28 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 09:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Jude the Entropic Man

Jude the Entropic Man (  | 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 comics character. No in-depth coverage and only minor in-universe appearances. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 02:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 03:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 03:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 03:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 03:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:42, 28 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: J. Opinion is split between merge and delete, but with a consensus not to keep. So either somebody does the merger, or if this doesn't happen or the content doesn't stick, anybody can RfD the redirect. Sandstein 09:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Jagged Bow

Jagged Bow (  | 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 comics character with only three or four appearances over 25+ years. Could merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: J but am leaning towards deletion. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 01:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 03:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 03:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 03:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 03:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure your "location for non-independently notable characters" holds up - the majority of characters on the list are independently notable. That aside (since it is only tangentially relevant), while you're right in the sense no content will be lost (if properly included), so a merge isn't necessary, its presence in other articles doesn't seem to waive the benefit and argument for merging it with the list, which acts as an excellent co-ordinating location for characters both elsewhere and not. Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
How far did you scroll down the list before coming to the conclusion that most are independently notable? I'd say at least a quarter of the entries on these lists are the results of merges over the last 5 years precisely because they're not notable outside the fiction. This is better suited for the Marvel Wikia. Argento Surfer ( talk) 13:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I used 4 spot check pages, usually viewed as a good amount on an alphabetical list. Obviously the odds could be against me in this specific case Nosebagbear ( talk) 13:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The upper entries on the J list are more notable than the average. Argento Surfer ( talk) 15:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: if the character is not covered in any or very few third-party, reliable sources, then I am not sure about the value of a merge as all of the information that would be added to the list would be in-universe. I agree with Argento Surfer, though I am open to changing my vote if someone provides links to third-party, reliable sources. I tried looking, but I could not find anything. I could be missing the obvious though as my Google game is not that great right (just having Wikipedia fatigue at the moment). Aoba47 ( talk) 04:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ SkyGazer 512: What value does the content have? The character appears five times across Marvel continuity and has a minimal number of incoming links. As others have noted, the lists are not intended to be exhaustive and nothing of importance would be lost by deleting this article. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 20:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Tbh, my reasoning is pretty much as simple as what BOZ said. The subject is not notable enough to have its own article, but we have an article right here containing a list of these characters. So instead of deleting the content completely, it makes perfect sense for the information in this article to be merged into the list of characters. Also, I'm not finding many of the arguments as to why we should remove the content completely convincing - I'm still not seeing what the problem would be if we merge the content, rather than have it outright deleted.-- SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 23:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm sure Argento Surfer will be able to put it more eloquently than I will, but from my end I'm in favor of deleting extremely minor characters like this one because of WP:IINFO and WP:MILL. The lists of characters aren't supposed to be wholly exhaustive (that's what fanwikis are for), and not every comic character needs inclusion on a list. There seems to be a recent push towards deletionism from within WP:COMICS and honestly, I'm fine with that. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 23:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply
One thing I will say, is that I don't think all the information that's currently listed on the page necessarily needs to be merged. It might be best to summarize it into a short paragraph and just add that to the List of Marvel Comics characters: J page.-- SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 23:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Indeed, that's the reason I have made the same argument on several other AFDs all currently going on; there is room enough for at least a handful of sentences for these characters, so we do not need to remove all information about them. BOZ ( talk) 00:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ansh 666 20:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Post-close addendum: there was a comment added between the time that I opened the AfD page and closing that I didn't see. While the NC close stands, I'd say it leans closer to consensus that GNG is met, though not all the way there. ansh 666 20:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Gary Trauner

Gary Trauner (  | 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:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of tiself, and the expected level of campaign coverage is not an automatic WP:GNG exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL: campaign coverage always exists for all candidates, so a candidate only clears the bar if the sourcing demonstrates him as a special case over and above most other candidates. But that's not what the sourcing does here, and he has no credible claim of preexisting notability for other reasons. Bearcat ( talk) 14:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep There's quite a few references here, this isn't this guy's first political rodeo, seems to be enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Active candidates and local politicians are not inherently notable, but such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" per WP:POLITICIAN. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 16:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Firstly, it doesn't matter if it's his first rodeo or his tenth — it matters whether he won a rodeo or not. Every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign-related coverage — if all a candidate had to show to be deemed notable was that some campaign coverage existed, there would never be any such thing as a non-notable candidate. To be deemed as passing GNG in lieu of failing NPOL, a candidate does not just have to show a handful of campaign coverage — he has to be able to show that his campaign coverage exploded so far beyond what every other candidate could also show that he's got a credible claim to being a special case. Bearcat ( talk) 18:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
We'll see what the rest of the community says; there's a reason why I voted "weak." PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 02:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Perennial candidates can be notable, even though by definition they do not win. I haven't yet made up my mind about this candidate. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
It would take a lot more than just WP:ROUTINE local coverage to make a perennial candidate notable. Lyndon LaRouche, sure. John Turmel, yeah. But not every single person who can simply claim to be a perennial candidate. Bearcat ( talk) 20:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't see any independent notability other than his candidacy from the references in the article. SportingFlyer talk 21:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is always coverage of a candidate for public office. That alone is not a sign of notability. We have deliberately decided that every candidate for the US congress is not notable. Nothing short of every candidate for US congress being notable would make Trauner notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Gary Trauner is well known in Wyoming and national political circles, and nearly won election to the U.S. House by less than a percentage point in what was nearly a major D upset, even in 2006. He's still a prominent figure in the DC state and Wyoming politics. Scanlan ( talk) 00:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The number of votes a person got in the process of not winning the election is not a notability claim in and of itself. Either he wins the election or the election is irrelevant to his notability or lack thereof. And just asserting that somebody is well known in national politics isn't a freebie that exempts you from having to show and source the fact as true — but none of the sourcing or substance here demonstrates that at all. Bearcat ( talk) 18:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Being a perennial candidate is not an automatic notability freebie either, in the absence of much more than just local attention. Bearcat ( talk) 20:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He has met GNG through independent media coverage, and this article has 26 citations. There is enough info for this to be considered a full article, and not a stub. Narayansg ( talk) 00:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
You might need to recount those citations with an eye to the fact that some of them are primary sources that can't assist notability, and virtually all of the rest are the WP:ROUTINE local coverage that every candidate in every election could always show. Nothing in the range or volume of sourcing makes him special at all — every candidate everywhere could always show every bit as much sourcing as this. Bearcat ( talk) 02:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The difficulty with perennial candidates (or near perennial candidates) is that there is not a great place to redirect the article to. Our usual outcome for members running for Congress is a redirect to the appropriate election page - in this case, there are three possible redirect targets. -- Enos733 ( talk) 05:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus so far, is redirecting a good solution?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 16:31, 28 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. Consensus that sourcing is inadequate, plus WP:CRYSTAL concerns. ansh 666 20:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

KC International Airlines

KC International Airlines (  | 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. The only sources look like press releases. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

It does not matter if it has a real Aircraft, what matters is coverage. And it has none. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
So A lot of trivial mentions, some demonstrating just why crystal is so important (a launch date of March, or was it January). So they have put back their launch date at least twice now. When they actually start flying the article could be recreated, at this time there is no guarantee of what their routs will even be. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Nominator assumed that he sources cited are press releases. What he failed to realize is that none of the sources cited are press releases. CAPA is an independent organization and so is plane spotters. This is a lazy nomination and the nominator deserves a trout since his CSD was based on assumption that article was previously deleted and then he assumed that sources are press releases. Nominator should refrain from nominating articles from AfD. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
What I meant was that they are not in depth coverage, they are the kind of materiel that companies write about themselves and give out. Almost all of the mentions are trivial (with the other one disusing the arrival of their first aircraft), and little more then "We exist" (you will note I did not say they were press releases, I said they look like them). So a few trivial mentions (amounting to they exist) and a newspaper report about them reciving one aircraft (in my opinion) notability does not make. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Planespotters is not considered reliable.-- Jetstreamer  Talk 16:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
And from one of the sources "KC International Airlines once again filed service revision for its planned inaugural", then yes Crystalballing is an issue here. Hell they cannot even say when in August they intend to start flying. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment commercial airlines are not "always notable"; as has been determined many times in other AfD discussions, airlines must satisfy WP:CORP just like any other companies. Having said that, I am reserving judgement at this time. YSSYguy ( talk) 07:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 16:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
None that I could find. The only news I found is the airline receiving their first plane. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
And no others, it is really logical to say an airline with one plane is going to be able to run a scheduled service? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
But it's a very shiny plane 😉
https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/67618-cambodias-kc-intl-airlines-secures-52mn-in-funding -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Also I did find this: https://www.pilotcareercentre.com/Air-Carrier-PCC-Profile/4071/KC-International-Airlines -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
So it is not even (At this time) licensed to operate aircraft. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The article says "The company is presently undergoing AOC Certification with an intended revenue services starting in early 2018 with planning for up to 25 aircraft in the next five years." And it's already mid 2018. Though it was last updated June 20, 2018. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
You would have thought if they had been accredited they would have said so, so the latest information is they are still not certificated to operate as a commercial airline. Thus this must fail Crystal ball. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Just curious how could they have bought a plane without licensing? -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The same way that Jeremy Clarkson did, I am not sure you need one to own a plane, just to operate it for commercial purposes. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 08:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The above raises more questions then answers, does it have an official website or Facebook page? How many staff does it have? An airline about to lunch in a day or so, and not one live update as to status or seat availability? Is it even still going? Slatersteven ( talk) 09:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
https://www.facebook.com/KCAIRLINES/ seem their Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/KCAIRLINES/photos/a.726576217537052.1073741829.683705931824081/841613212700018/?type=3
https://www.facebook.com/KCAIRLINES/photos/a.726576217537052.1073741829.683705931824081/849890125205660/?type=3 -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
And nothing since the middle (being generous) of July.
Ohh and http://kcairlines.com, ohh dear just how much more do we need to say "this is not even up and running yet". Slatersteven ( talk) 09:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Odd as their website is still not operational, or do they have another? Slatersteven ( talk) 09:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doesn't seem mergeable. ansh 666 20:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

North Carolina dromaeosaurid

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

Unnamed, only roughly classified, singular fragmentary fossil (a single tooth) that does not merit an article. (Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington theropod - exactly the same issue.) -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 09:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 09:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 13:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
How so? It's certainly a solidification of verifiability, but just being the subject of a scientific palaeontology paper doesn't establish notability. Just looking at this month I would imagine this would mean that these perinatal hadrosaurs [46], this large pterosaur [47], and these large theropod tracks [48] should all also have stub articles. None of them are Cretaceous Research of course, but they're all published papers, which seems to be what you're going off of. Lusotitan ( Talk | Contributions) 21:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
No it isn't. Primary scientific research reports of fossils are WP:MILL. Somebody else in the field (or the media) needs to care. For that matter, it hasn't even been formally published in Cretaceous Research yet - the citation is to a pre-publication release to subscribers. Agricolae ( talk) 21:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. By the logic of the creator any single fragment of a fossil that has any sort of unique fact about it should get an article with a single sentence (see the examples in my reply above). That's unsustainable and doesn't help anybody. This one doesn't even have the argument of an awkward merge like the Washington State theropod does, it's a very simple incorporation into the Dromaeosauridae article just like the deleted Australia spinosaur article. Lusotitan ( Talk | Contributions) 21:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - at a minimum this is WP:TOOSOON. The paper reporting it hasn't even been formally published yet. A sizable number of scientific papers either are completely ignored by their field, or are deemed to be flawed and are never accepted. Initial publication of a finding is no indication that it is authentic and noteworthy. A good rule of thumb for scientific findings is that a research paper needs to be formally published, then it has to be accepted as noteworthy and likely accurate (or at least possible) by the rest of the field, as evinced by summary and citation in reviews or the introductions of later papers written by a researcher independent of the author to indicate a finding is notable. Agricolae ( talk) 21:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - until this fossil is assigned a name, or, at the very least, until the paper that found the tooth is released, this article should not be on Wikipedia. While there is information that could render this more than a stub (ie the fact that it fills a gap in the taxonomy of Dromaeosauridae), the paper hasn't actually been published yet. Until it is (or, preferably, until the specimen is actually assigned a name), then the findings aren't exactly very reliable. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう 私の編集 21:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
By the way, after the paper is actually published, I'm also fine with adding it to the Dromaeosauridae article, since it can add useful information to its taxonomy. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう 私の編集 23:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow consideration of the late "merge" suggestion to Dromaeosauridae.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 16:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As of now, neither source for the article hasbeen formally published, so neither is a WP:RS. That makes none of it WP:V, so there is thus nothing to merge. This will change when the article is formally published, but what, if anything, to mention on the dromaeosaur page can be discussed at that time through the normal editing process. Agricolae ( talk) 16:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with dromaeosauridae. It seems unlikely that some would want specific details on the North Carolina version of this dinosaur. Vorbee ( talk) 16:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I have to agree. There's nothing to merge as of now, and this isn't a likely redirect term either. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 19:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Jumping on this as well. It's not even well written, we'd have to re-do the whole coverage of the subject anyways. When it's validly published it can be put on the page Appalachia (Mesozoic), written from scratch. Lusotitan ( Talk | Contributions) 20:15, 30 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. ansh 666 20:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Behrooz Astaneh

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

Does not meet Wikipedia notability criteria for biographies of living persons Rahiminejad ( talk) 08:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Eastmain: that's editor-in-chief, not editor. And the Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences seems to be a far cry from a notable journal, it's not even in MEDLINE. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 07:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per above Weak keep, per Randykitty. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 07:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. The Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences is indeed not a major journal, but I just went through the article and it does meet NJounrals because of its inclusion in Scopus. The latter database also gives a "CiteScore", roughly equivalent fo an impact factor, of almost 1, which is not bad for a general medical journal published in a non-Western country. According to their website, Astaneh is one of 2 chief editors, which would appear to satisfy NACADEMIC#8. I make this a "weak" keep, as there is not much more to be found on this person. -- Randykitty ( talk) 13:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • PS The fact that this journal is not in MEDLINE, noted by Headbomb above, is perhaps related to the US sanctions against Iran, as I remember reading that some Iranian authors could not publish in US-based journals because of them. The journal is in PMC, but may have gotten in there when the sanctions were lifted, as PMC works a bit faster, I think, than MEDLINE. This is just speculations, of course, as I have no sources for this. -- Randykitty ( talk) 13:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 16:16, 28 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 and redirect to List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom. I find the argument that this is a populated place and therefore meets GEOLAND to be particularly twisted. And regardless of ROADOUTCOMES, in the end an article needs to meet GNG and there is consensus that this one doesn't. Randykitty ( talk) 10:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Doncaster North services

Doncaster North 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)

No evidence of notability, and I'm not sure that service stations are notable enough to have articles. If it is important it could be mentioned in the article about the motorways it is next to. If this article is deleted then some of the articles for the other service stations in the UK should be PRODed. Jc86035 ( talk) 12:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment In the one US case where there are links at all to rest areas, they all point to one section of the New Jersey Turnpike article which lists them. I think that's only because they have names. Honestly I'm having a hard time seeing the notability of rest areas but I'm sure I'm about to be instructed otherwise. Mangoe ( talk) 14:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Going to have to go with delete as none of the arguments I'm seeing in favor of keeping are better than "is too!" Mangoe ( talk) 22:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ Jeni: I don't usually edit in this topic area or at AfD, but do you have sources which relate to this particular service station? Jc86035 ( talk) 14:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Rest stops in the US range from mere parking areas (though generally with some sort of rest rooms) to the complexes found along I-95 and the NJ Turnpike. The latter match the description of the British facilities, but while one can perhaps find some routine news briefs about them, they are, when all is said and done, just rest areas, and the description of these says the same. Mangoe ( talk) 17:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • These service areas are not much different than small shopping centres, which we already have a whole deletion sorting category for. Most shopping centres in the UK have their own postcodes, that doesn't make them notable however. Furthermore, majority of these services articles contain little more than travel guide content, including websites to hotels and other businesses in the area. Ajf773 ( talk) 18:35, 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
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ Necrothesp: We can't draw conclusions from those AFDs, which were flawed to begin with. The nominators wanted to delete all of the articles at once, even though some of the service stations are clearly notable, so it's not really surprising that they were both closed with a consensus to keep all the articles. That has nothing to do with whether this particular article passes the GNG. Jc86035 ( talk) 16:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
That's simply not true. The argument is that all British motorway service stations are notable. Good reasons have been given on those AfDs and those reasons have not changed. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
It's difficult to rely on flawed AfDs from almost a decade ago, as notability guidelines have changed. Also, the discussion wasn't extensive - it hasn't really been addressed from ten years ago, when notability guidelines were a bit different. The ROADOUTCOMES blurb was added by someone who contributed to one of those AfDs, and it's completely unclear to me why a UK service station would be presumptively notable, but a Croatia service station wouldn't be - especially where the UK service station fails WP:GNG like this one does. SportingFlyer talk 05:40, 20 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
  • Delete The reason Jeni's argument about "all UK services stations are notable" usually works is because traditionally they have all had enough coverage in reliable sources to write a reasonable article about them (eg: see the good article Watford Gap services which has a whole section on being the "feeding trough" for 1960s rock bands, easily verifying it's not just some random building in the middle of nowhere). In the case of Doncaster North, with a search for sources, we've got a source that shows it exists, a passing mention, and some random news tidbit in The Sun. There's just nothing of substance to be able to write an article around it. Of course, if they were to pay tribute to the other Doncaster North and rename it Miliband services (with free complementary bacon sandwich), we might have something. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 16:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The word "populated" means that there are people there. A motorway service is required to be open 24*7 and so there are always people there. There is a hotel in the complex and so people sleep there too. WP:GEOFEAT refers to structures such as dams and bridges which are typically not so populated. Andrew D. ( talk) 23:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, nobody lives there - otherwise, all hotels would be inherently notable. SportingFlyer talk 00:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • It's a service station + a few other shops and smaller than most shopping centres. Notability is NOT inherited just because it is a geographic feature and it exists. Ajf773 ( talk) 00:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:GEOLAND establishes our common practise that populated places which are geographically distinct merit articles. One reason for this is Wikipedia has a role as a gazetteer per WP:5. Service areas are similar to railroad stations, airports and other transport nexuses which routinely get articles. They are signposted, substantial and legally recognised. My !vote stands. Andrew D. ( talk) 07:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
A shopping center is not a populated place, and that's in essence what these service areas are. This "every dot is sacred" approach does not have consensus; people are largely willing to have an article on every permanent settlement, but the notion that every commercial area, whether established with the help of the government or not, is not accepted. Mangoe ( talk) 10:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
We have many articles about shopping centres and so that analogy fails as an argument for deletion. But shopping is not the main function of a service area, which is more related to transportation. Mangoe has written numerous articles about lighthouses, which are another type of transport nexus. They may or may not be populated but, either way, they are significant landmarks. I take the same view of service areas; consider that they are a valid per WP:GEOLAND and so my !vote stands. Andrew D. ( talk) 22:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Lighthouses do not fall under WP:GEOLAND but rather WP:GEOFEAT as either an "artificial geographical feature" or an "artificial feature related to infrastructure." It's a similar story here. The difference is WP:GEOLAND assumes notability as long as the place can be verified, as Wikipedia is a gazetteer. WP:GEOFEAT only grants presumed notability to a select class of features (cultural/national heritage/protected sites with verifiable information beyond simple statistics), and if the article doesn't meet that standard, it has to meet WP:GNG. I'm fine if you think this meets WP:GNG and we'll disagree, but service stations are not presumptively notable under any current geographic standards. SportingFlyer talk 22:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The references in the article fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY as do all the other sources I can find in my own searching. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete—fails WP:GNG. When we deal with certain article subject areas, we presume notability. This is because editors have repeatedly determined that those subjects usually pass WP:GNG or meet another one of Wikipedia's core functions, so it's been a fair assumption that the rest of the articles in that area will as well. That's why we have pages like WP:ROADOUTCOMES to document these general findings to forestall endless AfD discussions with the same results. This has been a good rule of thumb, but it comes with a corollary: when a specific article is shown to fail the GNG test, then that article loses the notability presumption and gets deleted.
    It's been mentioned above that Wikipedia has a gazetteer function. Since a motorway service area isn't a populated place, and traditional gazetteers lack extensive coverage of MSAs, this article can't avail itself of any exception to GNG for this Wikipedia function.
    Additionally, it may be time to revisit ROADOUTCOMES' statement that UK MSAs are generally notable based on recent AfDs and the demonstration above that it's based on presumptions flowing from just two flawed discussions long ago. Imzadi 1979  → 18:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Imzadi1979: I think removing / revising ROADOUTCOMES makes sense; as I said above, the reason we generally have articles on British service areas is because they tend to meet GNG anyway. For example, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardiff West services, the article was kept (or at least not deleted) primarily because I expanded it and added many more sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That needs to be revisited and probably removed - that sentence was added in 2009 after two AfDs, both of which would likely be resolved differently today, especially since a number of UK motorway service areas have been deleted recently. I started a discussion on this on the talk page a few weeks back and if this is deleted I'll probably just be bold and remove or modify the outcome text. SportingFlyer talk 02:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ Gidonb: That has nothing to do with whether this article in particular is notable. There's no policy or guideline that states notability is presumed for British service stations. Jc86035 ( talk) 06:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Clearly fails the WP:GNG; what we're dealing with here is (ultimately) a run-of-the-mill shopping center. The claim in WP:ROADOUTCOMES about services clearly isn't good law given recent contrary AfDs and speedy deletions. It's meant to be descriptive, it doesn't carry the weight of policy, and it's inaccurate to boot. The claims about WP:GEOLAND must fail as well; if it applied to services where the population is 100% transient then every major (or minor) commercial complex would be presumptively notable, and this is not so. WP:GEOFEAT is obviously the applicable guideline inasmuch as this is a complex of buildings, but that section requires significant coverage in line with the GNG, and none is on offer here. Mackensen (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. The argument that service stations fall under the category of "populated places" is entirely baseless, if not ridiculous, as anyone remotely familiar with the oil marketing & distribution sector would tell us. I hope we do not have to argue too much about that. As to the point made about service stations requiring "acts of Parliament," at least in the UK, it is a disingenuous one: Parliaments pass laws that set the framework of requirements for a service station to open and operate. The permissions for each and every station, big or small, to operate are issued by the competent local authorities according to those laws.
As to WP:ROADOUTCOMES, it is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Even so, the text of that proposed essay advises editors to avoid weak or illogical arguments, such as "We always keep these articles". End of story. - The Gnome ( talk) 09:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 17:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Buriers

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

non notable band with minimal coverage (none significant and all along the conventional lines of low level entries of very small acts in music publications (e.g. the occasional gig review and album review)); none from large and prominent RSs.

vanity page created by subject. numerous issues with tone, content etc. fails Music and GNG Rayman60 ( talk) 13:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 13:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 13:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 13:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 16:10, 28 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. ansh 666 20:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Stone Makers

Stone Makers (  | 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 short film, nomination for a major award does not meet standards described in WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 16:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 16:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 16:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A nomination for a top-level film award like the Canadian Screen Award for Best Short Documentary most certainly is enough to pass WP:NFILM — it always has been enough before, and I fail to see why that should suddenly change now. By comparison, every film listed in Academy Award for Best Documentary (Short Subject) (the most immediate equivalent to this award elsewhere) is already a blue link, with not a single redlinked or unlinked title anywhere in that entire article — and it's not the least bit difficult to find within that list films that have no other claim of notability besides the nomination, and are sourced no better than this. As well, Emmy or CSA nominations are enough in and of themselves to get television shows over WP:TVSHOW, and film directors over WP:CREATIVE, and actors or actresses over WP:NACTOR; Grammy or Juno or Polaris award nominations are enough in and of themselves to get musicians and their albums over WP:NMUSIC; Pulitzer or Giller or Booker nominations are enough in and of themselves to get writers and their books over WP:AUTHOR and WP:NBOOK. So it makes literally no sense whatsoever for films to somehow be the only subject area in all of encyclopediadom where a nomination for a top-level award is somehow not enough. Furthermore, the article does include a source that discusses the film in much greater detail than just including its name in a list of nominees — I always wait until I can find more sourcing than just the list of nominees itself, whereas editors working with Academy Award nominees often don't — so notability is properly covered off. Does it need more before it can be considered a good article? Yes, absolutely, that's why I put a stub notice on it. But it already has enough sourcing, and a reasonable notability claim, to be a keepable article. Bearcat ( talk) 22:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep has some reliable sources coverage and nominated for a major notable award Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 16:10, 28 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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 05:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Archie Carter

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

Andy Carter represented Worcestershire in said T20 game, not Archie Carter, as confirmed by ECB, Worcestershire CCC, and ECB video shows Andy Carter. Player also confirmed as signing on 5 July 2018. Harriesss ( talk) 15:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Worcestershire confirm it in this article. [1] Harriesss ( talk) 16:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ansh 666 20:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Koronis Pharmaceuticals

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

article consists entirely of primary sources ... online search finds no other reliable references Wolfson5 ( talk) 17:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks! FWIW, I found most of these with Gale (publisher)/ InfoTrac/ProQuest/GeneralOneFile. My city and county libraries let you log in with your library card number. You can also get access to a ton of paywalled databases at The Wikipedia Library. Even if you can't get your own login to a databse, or don't have time, you can also request someone who does have access help you at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. If I had fully formatted all of the citations I'd have used {{ Subscription required}} to note the General OneFile source but I was only trying to ID the existence of the sources. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Alas there are two databases on wiki library that I'd like access to. Unfortunately, everyone else seems to be of a similar mind - unobliging souls! Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 16:02, 28 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. ansh 666 20:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

El amor brujo (novel)

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Relist. Unorthodox, I know, but there were too many of these quick nominations for adequate scrutiny. Coverage here and other book results here deserve more time for evaluation. Other uncommented nominations are being closed as soft delete, which is fair. I'd like this one to get more attention. Mortee ( talk) 15:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Fair enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 15:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. Regarding Mortee's link above, I suggest searching for "Arlt" as well as "Arit", for Arlt+1932, and so forth. This book is also known as Sorcerers Love, Love the Magician, Love the Sorcerer, Bewitched Love, Bewitching Love, Bewitched by Love, the Love Wizard and so forth. James500 ( talk) 10:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
d'oh, yes "arit" was a typo. Mortee ( talk) 00:22, 30 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Últimos días de la víctima (novel)

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG.  » Shadowowl | talk 14:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • So? It satisfies criteria 3 of WP:NBOOKS. The guideline says that it is encyclopedic. The guideline says that Wikipedia does include books which have been adapted into notable or otherwise significant films, which this one plainly is. James500 ( talk) 22:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    It also says "This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." Also notability isn't inherited.
    Furthermore, "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." This article has no reference. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • 'Not inherited' is an essay. You cannot use an essay to reject a guideline, you need another guideline or a policy. In this case you would have to argue to WP:IAR the express and unambiguous wording of guideline, and that is generally an uphill struggle. In this case, it should be an insurmountable climb, as there is nothing resembling a good reason to ignore that part of the guideline. As for reliable sources: Here are some sources for the Oscar entry: [49] [50]. There is also a source in the film's article which you have overlooked. Further, the film has coverage in GBooks which satisfies GNG, so it is notable. Finally, a source that the 1982 film is an adaptation of the 1979 novel by Feinman: [51]. Further, the 1979 novel satisfies GNG due to coverage in GBooks etc. QED. James500 ( talk) 23:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 15:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect I held my tongue on this because I figured if the book has been adapted to film then that content can't be incorporated into our article on the author, even if the claim that the film is an adaptation of the book is currently unsourced anywhere on English Wikipedia, but the fact that James500 apparently went and looked for a source to verify that claim and came up with a bare GBooks link to an anthology of short fiction that doesn't appear to say anything on the matter [52] [53] has tilted me against preserving this article as is. No prejudice against a better standalone article being created if someone can write more sourced content than is already there. And this doesn't even touch on the wikilawyering "essay vs. guideline" remark above, which is complete nonsense (the guideline is a guideline, and not a policy, because it is meant to be flexible and applied based on circumstances; an argument based on the circumstances of this "article" as it stands now is permitted, AFAIAC, to incorporate elements of a widely held editorial opinion like WP:NOTINHERITED). Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • If you do not use speech marks, the search engine will return nonsense. Instead search for this and this which show that the book clearly states that the novel was adapted for film. Further, this says the same thing (that the film directed by Aristarain is an adaptation of the novel by Feinman) and is available in full page preview. James500 ( talk) 01:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Well, the first search you cite says nothing whatsoever about the film adaptation, while the second and third say Feinmann, a screenwriter, wrote the film script based on a version of the novel, which actually cancels out my above concern that if the book has been adapted to film then that content can't be incorporated into our article on the author; actually, our article on the author doesn't even describe him as a screenwriter at present, so that's all the more reason to incorporate the content of both this "article" and the source you have cited in this AFD (but made no attempt to use to improve the article) into the main article on Feinmann. Again, if you want to actually build an article on the novel to the point where it provides unique information that wouldn't be more useful to readers if incorporated in the Feinmann article, fire ahead. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Okay, I didn't notice that Feinman was the screenwriter (I must be going blind), but ... I'm afraid I have discovered that the book appears to have been adapted twice. The second adaptation is called "Two to Tango" (1988) directed by Hector Olivera: [54] [55] [56]. Variety says it is an adaptation of the book and a remake of the first film (with Feinman as screenwriter again). I have every intention of expanding the article on the novel, it is just that I can't expand 147 articles and deal with the same number of AfDs (some of which are now over), plus new AfDs, at the same time, so there might be a slight delay. James500 ( talk) 04:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The 'not inherited' argument is not based on the circumstances of this article, since no exceptional circumstances have been identified. The only way to apply 'not inherited' would be to delete the reference to a significant or notable motion picture from criteria 3 of the guideline altogether for all books whatsoever. Making an exception to the guideline means distinguishing the guideline by identifying some material fact that is present in this case that the guideline does not mention; it does not that we can completely overrule the guideline by deleting part of the guideline altogether, which is what is proposed here. James500 ( talk) 01:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The exceptional circumstances are that you claim that because the film, which was written independently by the same author based on the same story he created, was put forward as an Academy Award contender, that makes the novel notable. I'm not saying that I agree with that argument, just that it is a valid argument and to talk about "essays" and "guidelines" despite this is unhelpful. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This article is in the process of being expanded. It contains accurate, verifiable information that is not included in the article about José Pablo Feinmann, or in the article about the 1982 film. WP:PRESERVE applies to the content of this article. James500 ( talk) 03:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The book seems to meet our notability criteria and I'm not seeing any satisfactory reason to delete the article even though the criteria have been met. There may be good editorial reasons to merge this article with content on the author or on the films but this should be left to emerge by talk page consensus as the overall editorial situation develops. Thincat ( talk) 14:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per James500 and Thincat rationales. Notability satisfied. -- 1l2l3k ( talk) 20:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - going by WP:NBOOK, criteria 3 says "...made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture...". As source material for Argentina's (unsuccessful) 1983 nominee, which was one of only 17 films produced that year,[ [57]], I'm going with a weak keep. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete Per nom, Plus an opinion that is somewhat valid but not really: By my understanding, this is on Spanish Wikipedia. If someone is researching this book, chances are they can read Spanish. They don't need an english article on Wikipedia for it, especially a bot-generated one. Before deletion nomination, the article barely hit 2 views daily, usually receiving none. Why keep it? Redditaddict69 ( talk) 22:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ansh 666 20:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The Swallow Song

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

Was prodded and deprodded before. Fails WP:NSONG and has no references. » Shadowowl | talk 19:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
You would have to determine if it should be redirected to Richard Fariña as the songwriter or to Ring Them Bells on which Joan Baez did a somewhat notable rendition. Probably not worthy of a protracted primary topic analysis. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 14:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 15:30, 28 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. ansh 666 20:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Jaswinder Singh Jassi

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of the head of a political party's youth wing. As always, this is not an office that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because the person exists, but he's not referenced well enough to clear WP:GNG in lieu: the references are a YouTube video of him speaking, and glancing namechecks of his existence in two newspaper articles about other things. This is not how you reference a person as notable enough for an encyclopedia article: he has to be the subject of reliable source coverage to get in the door. Bearcat ( talk) 15:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Agree with the Nom. This is a non notable budding politician. Nothing notable so far to merit a BIO. fails WP:GNG. I will also inform other AfD contributors that this name is a fairly common name in India and you may get several false hits.-- DBig Xray 12:12, 29 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. Mackensen (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Heimat ist das, was gesprochen wird

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

One line, none notable book. Suggest redirecting to Herta Müller. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 71#"AFD is not for redirecting"?, there is a consensus that redirecting may be discussed at AfD. It seems worthwhile to have some further discussion of whether this book is independently notable, or whether it should be redirected to the article on its (very notable) author. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Este sau nu este Ion (3rd nomination) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Im Haarknoten wohnt eine Dame (3rd nomination).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 15:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Authors do not win a Nobel for a particular book, but for their overall work. (It's not like the Pulitzer). Any full-scale book by a author of such great importance is in my opinion almost certainly notable, and the article should be sourced by those who can work in the appropriate language. I strongly favor redirecting and combining for minor authors. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Sourced and expanded. AFD is not for suggesting redirects, neither is it a venue for discussion of subjects that have already been kept by clear consensus in a previous discussion. Sam Sailor 05:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Umm the closing remark of the discussion is "There is a ☑ clear numerical and policy-weighed(For one, the arguments about utilizing RFD is flat-out improper.)consensus that AfD is a right venue to seek for redirect(s), which have been challenged.The first attempt at redirection ought be directly attempted per our principles of being bold." So yes AFD is the place to suggest redirects that has been challenged. And in this case it was challenged since was said the article should be kept as is because of notability. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 20:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply
No, you get it wrong, the article has never been redirected, consequently there has never been a revert of the redirect (a challenge). The sentence "And in this case it was challenged since was said the article should be kept as is because of notability." makes no sense. Sam Sailor 16:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 16:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Im Haarknoten wohnt eine Dame

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

One line, none notable book. Suggest redirecting to Herta Müller. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 71#"AFD is not for redirecting"?, there is a consensus that redirecting may be discussed at AfD. It seems worthwhile to have some further discussion of whether this book is independently notable, or whether it should be redirected to the article on its (very notable) author. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Este sau nu este Ion (3rd nomination) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heimat ist das, was gesprochen wird (3rd nomination).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 15:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Authors do not win a Nobel for a particular book, but for their overall work. (It's not like the Pulitzer). Any full-scale book by a author of such great importance is in my opinion almost certainly notable, and the article should be sourced by those who can work in the appropriate language. I strongly favor redirecting and combining for minor authors. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Mueller's writing is covered in multiple book-length studies, e.g. [58] [59] [60], and there is sufficient information to produce an article. Probably meets WP:BKCRIT #5 although that's very vague. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 13:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Suggestions to redirect an article should not be brought to AFD unless a previous WP:BLAR per policy Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection has been challenged, cf. the recent discussion at Special:Permalink/852737171#"AFD is not for redirecting"?. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 06:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Este sau nu este Ion

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

One line, none notable book. Suggest redirecting to Herta Müller. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 71#"AFD is not for redirecting"?, there is a consensus that redirecting may be discussed at AfD. It seems worthwhile to have some further discussion of whether this book is independently notable, or whether it should be redirected to the article on its (very notable) author.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 15:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Authors do not win a Nobel for a particular book, but for their overall work. (It's not like the Pulitzer). Any full-scale book by a author of such great importance is in my opinion almost certainly notable, and the article should be sourced by those who can work in the appropriate language. I strongly favor redirecting and combining for minor authors. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - As per DGG and User:James500. Being a stub of a notable topic is not a reason to delete an article. Stubs of notable topics are always better than no articles. -- Oakshade ( talk) 04:24, 31 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. Sam Walton ( talk) 15:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Laetitia Kudriavzeva Lo Iudice

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

Article about a non-notable person with a lot of irrelevant claims and puffery. » Shadowowl | talk 13:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Thank you very much for pointing me to potential weaknesses of the article. I would greatly appreciate if you could provide instances of irrelevant claims and puffery. As for notability, I agree that from a formal standpoint, the article may not meet the requirements for notability. But I rely on the insights of the editors to grasp the idiosyncrasy of the subject matter. As a matter of fact, there is a striking contrast between the popularity of Laetitia Lo Iudice in Tunisia, to which bear testimony the space devoted to her in tunisian television channels and the number of her followers on Instagram (circa 500000), the paucity of articles covering her activities on the web. Hence, I think such case deserves a special treatment, taking into account the margins for improvement. Ahmed Lili ( talk) 17:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Spam about a non-notable person. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 15:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The references demonstrate that she is a well-known celebrity who passes GNG. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 20:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Spammy article about a non-notable person. The references are brief articles, some only mentioning the subject only in passing. -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Is not notable, does not meet GNG. Lack of independant sourcing."Laetitia first gained recognition as a columnist in the popular talk show L'émission, before raising to stardom through her Instagram profile" is partly referenced by a Youtube clip of the subject slowmotion walking up a flight of stairs as the camera focuses solely on her behind, followed by slowmotion bouncing about soft porn style. It along with another similar clip (making up 2 of the 6 refs) appear to be from her own youtube channel. Curdle ( talk) 10:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:N and do not have reliable independent resources. NANExcella ( talk) 11:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ansh 666 20:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Japanese Rail Sim

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

Game which doesn't meet WP:NVIDEOGAMES. All sources are the developer's website.  » Shadowowl | talk 13:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no independent sources, so fails WP:GNG. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Actually I did translate the Japanese wiki page into English, thinking it would be ok like that(sorry for this). After some more research, articles on 4gamer.net (one of the biggest Japanese game information websites) do clearly state what articles are directly copied from the game developers and what articles they wrote their own. Like here (where they state it is a message from the developer) and here where they wrote the article themselves. I'll update the article with sources as soon as possible, please do not delete it yet. (SPSPC) 02:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPSPC ( talk) • contribs) 03:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Updated the page with external sources & moved the official page links to the external page links part. SPSPC ( talk) 03:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 15:07, 28 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. Seems reasonable consensus that with additional sources, notability requirements are met (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Parque Naucalli

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

Crappy bot article. Non-notable park which PROD was removed without reason.  » Shadowowl | talk 12:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 14:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 28 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. Strong consensus that with additional sources notability has been satisfied (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Parque de la China

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

Crappy bot article. Non-notable park which PROD was removed without reason. » Shadowowl | talk 12:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 14:41, 28 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. There are good arguments on both sides of the debate. The only consensus that I can discern is that the article needs significant work. No prejudice against taking this to AfD again if improvement (and good sources!) is not forthcoming in, say, another 6 months. Randykitty ( talk) 11:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Older people's associations

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

Lacking useful content Rathfelder ( talk) 20:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete too generic, too broad, and "this needs to be expanded" is not a valid argument against deletion. If there really exists enough material to create an article (I personally doubt it) then the article can always be re-created with such content. Amsgearing ( talk) 22:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I added in referenced mention of two different nations that created these. It can be expanded. They may be called something else in some nations. Dream Focus 03:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The only content here concerns specific associations/projects/programs, rather than about a broader concept called "older people's associations". Extrapolating the definition based on a couple examples, without in-depth coverage of the subject on its own seems more like OR. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The expansion shows why the article in misconceived. There are many different older people's organisations, all different depending on context. The fact that they are called Older people's associations doesn't mean they have anything in common. These bits should be in articles relating to Cambodia and Sierra Leone. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I'm confused because the title is in lower-case suggesting a general concept, while the bolded first sentence is an upper-case proper-noun eg. a specific named corporate entity such as an NGO or GO. Which is the article about? -- Green C 14:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ GreenC: The article was not created by an experienced editor and so the formatting of the case is not significant. That editor also created an article about a specific NGO -- HelpAge International -- which is active in this field and my impression is that the term "older people's association" is commonly used by such international organisations to refer in a general way to self-help associations of older people, which exist in many countries. The scale of these can be quite huge -- the WHO source indicates that China has about half a million such associations. As different countries will handle this in different ways, this is a broad concept. Our guidance is that, while such articles can be difficult to write, we should still have them. WP:BROADCONCEPT gives examples such as supreme court or ministry of finance. The particulars of these will vary from country to country but there's clearly an overall concept which is sensible for an encyclopedia to summarise. For a comparable example in the age field, consider youth club. That's a well-understood concept in the UK but the link now redirects to youth center, because someone moved it to a supposedly more general term. Whatever you call it, there's clearly a similar need for pages describing the general concept of a youth organisation. The same applies to organisations of older people. Andrew D. ( talk) 14:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
It appears HelpAge International invented the term and concept in 1998 in Cambodia (just added to article). With their help it has spread, but it's not HAI-specific as other NGOs have started OPAs (Sierra Leone) and countries have adopted the model and run it themselves. -- Green C 15:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are 10s if not 100s of millions of people in OPAs, mostly in Asia though the model appears to be spreading to other countries. There are plenty of reliable sources, notability is not a problem, I added some but there are plenty more. Rhododendrites is incorrect about no sources that discuss it as a whole. That argument also contradicts Amsgearing who says it is 'too generic and broad' - which is it, too specific or to generic? We have sources that discuss both big picture, and specific. The assertion that they have 'nothing in common' is incorrect as sources show they are discussed as a group and given a common name (OPA) - they are different in local aspects to remain flexible to local needs but they are similar in other aspects. If the country-specific sub-sections get long enough they can be split off to separate articles but doesn't make sense to do it yet. -- Green C 14:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Seems to be a niche or fringe concept, but worse: It contains no real meat, and has been a stub for over 10 years.
    Should someone some day, within next century or so, find something making the article worth reading, then it can be created at that time. -- DexterPointy ( talk) 21:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • If we want an article addressing the concept broadly should it not be called Seniors' organizations in line with the category? Rathfelder ( talk) 09:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 14:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem like a vague topic to me, but I did read all the sources about it online. It's basically just an open source version of the AARP exported to third world countries and China, with individual customizations on a per country basis. Lots of institutional ideas from the West have been exported this way, how developing countries become developed quickly without having to reinvent the wheel. -- Green C 21:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Tirthak Saha

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Being on the Forbes list is not sufficient to meet notability especially as he is not on the 30 under 30 but on one of the 30 lists of 30 under 30 (900 people in total) and for the moment he has achieved nothing of note. The sources are not sufficient to show he meets notability requirements. The article creator claims no COI and has just been in contact with the subject to request his photo. Dom from Paris ( talk) 06:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 06:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 06:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 06:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply


  • Keep This article very clearly meets WP:ANYBIO. "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.". Forbes 30 Under 30 is a significant national award. The nature of the Forbes List is to highlight distinguished and notable individuals in a given field. There is no singular "30 Under 30" list - every year Forbes releases lists in 30 categories that comprise the "30 Under 30". Any person on Forbes 30 Under 30 is on a specific category list. [2] Further, 900 people out of 54,000,000 people eligible (age 18-29) in the US. [3] which makes the subject part of 0.00167% of the eligible population. As per the sources of the article, he does in fact have significant accomplishments, including being a finalist in the NASA RASC-AL scientific contest, his scholarly work on "Planitia-Hellas Human Advanced Martian Environment (PHAME)" and his project with American Electric Power, for which a $1 Billion initiative to modernize the electrical grid is being implemented The coverage of these avoids WP:BLP1E

Lastly, here is a short list of articles that are deemed notable primarily for their recognition of the Forbes 30 Under 30 List:
Danielle Fong
Himansu Gupta
Henry Lin
Alvin Salehi
Nikil Viswanathan
Justin Lewis (entrepreneur)
Ryan Williams (entrepreneur)
Param Jaggi
Amber Yang
-- Ngunmo ( talk) 15:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "GUPTILL REWRITES RECORD BOOKS WITH FASTEST EVER T20 TON BY WORCESTERSHIRE PLAYER". Worcestershire CCC. 28 July 2018.
  2. ^ "30 Under 30: 2018". Forbes.
  3. ^ Bureau, US Census. "National Population by Characteristics: 2010-2017". www.census.gov.
  • Comment Bringing up WP:OTHER is helpful here, as the deletion discussions of the cited examples specifically cite non-Forbes 30 under 30 notability criteria for keeping those articles, e.g. winning awards or meeting other academic criteria. If there are multiple independent reliable sources that show the subject meeting other notability criteria, then notability would not hinge solely on whether Forbes 30 under 30 is considered a significant award. Bakazaka ( talk) 23:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Thank you Bakazaka. It would appear that WP:OTHER is relevant here indeed. I cited those articles to show that the subject's notability should not hinge solely on whether Forbes 30 under 30 is considered a significant award, as the cited articles were deemed notable for their contributions/awards in addition to their Forbes 30 Under 30 awards per WP:BASIC. For example, Amber Yang won "the second-highest award at the 2017 Intel International Science and Engineering Fair" in addition to the Forbes award. It is not likely that Yang would have been deemed notable based solely on the Intel award. While I am not saying the subject is notable just because other articles exist with awards of similar caliber, the subject we are discussing has 6 instances in addition to the Forbes award that document an award received, a major contribution to his field or both. These instances are all well-cited by independent secondary sources. The article clearly falls well within WP:BASIC and does not fall under WP:BLP1E. -- Ngunmo ( talk) 15:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The case for notability would be clearer if the article contained references to significant coverage of those accomplishments by independent reliable sources. Currently the references include an alumni blog, the subject's own work, a YouTube video from the subject's employer, and a listing of participants in a NASA event, none of which count toward notability. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That's perfectly reasonable and very helpful advice, thank you. The inclusion of the subject's work and the list of NASA finalists was to show factuality rather than notability but I absolutely see your point. I have edited the article to include several new sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] -- Ngunmo ( talk) 03:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Tirthak Saha, rejected by DU, Delhi boy features in Forbes 30 Under 30 List". The Financial Express. 22 November 2017.
  2. ^ "The inspiring story of Tirthak Saha, who is now on Forbes' 30 Under 30 list". GQ India. 29 November 2017.
  3. ^ "Young Fort Wayne engineer with Indiana Michigan Power makes Forbes energy list | News, Sports, Jobs - News-Sentinel". News-Sentinel.
  4. ^ "Not bright enough for DU, but fit to join Zuckerberg, Malala on Forbes list - Times of India". The Times of India.
My mistake about the 30 under 30 the trouble is that when people use this as a way of showing that the person is notable they never say that they are on a specific list and give the impression that there are only 30 recipients and not 900. That said all the articles are based on his being named on the list and some put him in the same class as Zuckerberg which is ridiculous. For the moment all he has achieved is getting on the list. Looks like a WP:BLP1E. And a case of WP:TOOSOON. Dom from Paris ( talk) 06:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I understand the confusion about 30 Under 30 - I've corrected the article to specify the category for the award. All of the sources were cited because they give significant and unbiased mention to the subject's other achievements in addition to the Forbes award which I referenced in my earlier comments. Regarding the Zuckerberg comparison, it is not uncommon for journalists to reference other notable recipients of the same award and they were making this comparison on the basis of being on the Forbes 30 Under 30 list. It is factually correct that the subject earned the same award as Mark Zuckerberg. Please correct me if i'm wrong but if you read the cited sources, they do not make much claim of similarity beyond the fact that the subject and Zuckerberg were both 30 Under 30 Recipients. I will concede that I am new to Wikipedia so please let me know if there are other things that can be done to better the article. -- Ngunmo ( talk) 15:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Zuckerberg's claim to notability on Wikipedia is not dependent on his listing in the Forbes 30 under 30. But in this article the multiple, reliable, independent sources supporting notability are driven by the Forbes listing. That's a WP:BLP1E pattern. The other sources do not support notability, as the article's creator has said. So WP:OVERCOME seems relevant here. Bakazaka ( talk) 17:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 14:38, 28 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. North America 1000 14:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Nritya Creations

AfDs for this article:
Nritya Creations (  | 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 was discussed at AfD in 2009, but closed as no consensus. I cannot find any substantial sources that would indicate the group passes our notability criteria. It was argued that the group winning an unspecified international dance competition was sufficient to keep it last time, but simply winning one competition is not enough to grant notability. What's important is reliable sources discussing the win, which aren't present here. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 06:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 06:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 06:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 14:37, 28 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 delete per G5 (created by a banned user). Hut 8.5 20:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Brazil–Sweden football rivalry

Brazil–Sweden 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)

The article provides no evidence for either the existence or the notability of such a rivalry. The only source used in the article is to a results database. The prose of the article is completely unsourced and seems like the author's own opinion of how the countries should view each other rather than encyclopedic information. A Google search only produces one result [65] that mentions the teams in the same sentence, a list of the best "World Cup rivalries" which openly admits that the inclusion of the match-up (in last place) is not because it has any of the characteristics of a rivalry but only because the teams have played each other many times in the World Cup. BlueSwede92 ( talk) 13:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. BlueSwede92 ( talk) 13:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude ( talk) 07:27, 31 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. Consensus to keep given adaptations and reviews satisfying notability requirements (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The Strangers in the House

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 13:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Crappy bot articles may be crappy bot articles but don't need crappy bot nominations. If the issue is that they're crappy and unsourced, I wouldn't mind deletion -- but it doesn't look like the claim about notability is based on anything at all, since even a 5-second google search of the name of the book plus the author's last name turn s up a whole bunch of sources. Wouldn't be !voting keep if none of them were in the article, but given the addition by Mortee, keep per WP:HEY. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Mortee. Satisfies WP:NBOOK by virtue of having been adapted for film. James500 ( talk) 21:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. With four film adaptations and multiple reviews (not all of which are in the article), this does pass NBOOK. It needs to be expanded, but that's not something to delete it over. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ansh 666 20:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Adewale Aladejana

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

fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NOTSOAPBOX the sources are a mix of PR puff pieces product placement, blogs and interviews. The article makes false claims such as "He was named one of the 100 most influential Nigerians in 2017" whereas the source states "LIST OF 100 MOST INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE IN CHRISTIAN MINISTRY IN NIGERIA". Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry but $10 million is not that big of a deal and secondly did you have a look at the source that claims it is worth this much? With quotes like "Adewale is married to the most beautiful woman in the world; the sultry, elegant, irresistible Oluwatoyin and they are blessed with two princess Ruby and Zoe" this does not look like a serious bit of journalism. It also claims he graduated from the Medill school of journalism that has produced 38 Pulitzer prize winners...they produced 28 so not good on fact checking. Dom from Paris ( talk) 05:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I created the article. I will edit accordingly and remove the puff. He is a notable entrepreneur in Nigeria who built a million dollar business from the scratch. Please keep. Thank you.
  • Delete. There is specific criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Arguments like, "He's a good person," or "I am impressed with," should not be part of AfD. We should be pointing to criteria like WP:ANYBIO and, above all, WP:GNG and say the subject does not meet those criteria. It's not a judgement call on the individual, simply they are not notable enough for inclusion in a world-wide encyclopedia, WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY. Ifnord ( talk) 21:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 12:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete: I have gone through this subject earlier, and discovered he wasn't notable. I can't go back to my findings. Reply for the keep above - The $10m dollar claim is not from a very reliable source. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 22:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 20:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Chris Beake

Chris Beake (  | 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:NGRIDIRON #3 as he is an assitant coach and fails WP:GNG Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 12:39, 28 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. ansh 666 20:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Tom McMahon (American football coach)

Tom McMahon (American football coach) (  | 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:NGRIDIRON as has never been a head coach and fails WP:GNG Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 12:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • delete Only routine sports coverage with most sources being Broncos' media guide. Seems to be part of an attempt to give every Bronco assistant coach an article.14:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 17:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Greg Williams (American football coach)

Greg Williams (American football coach) (  | 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:NGRIDIRON #3 and WP:GNG Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 12:39, 28 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. ansh 666 20:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Tyler Hill (American football)

Tyler Hill (American football) (  | 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:NGRIDIRON #3 and WP:GNG Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 12:39, 28 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. ansh 666 20:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Loren Landow

Loren Landow (  | 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:NGRIDIRON #3 and GNG Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 12:39, 28 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. ansh 666 20:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Anthony Lomando

Anthony Lomando (  | 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:NGRIDIRON #3 and GNG Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 12:38, 28 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. ansh 666 20:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Chris Strausser

Chris Strausser (  | 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:NGRIDIRON #3 and GNG Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 12:38, 28 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. ansh 666 20:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Mic Diggy

AfDs for this article:
Mic Diggy (  | 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 I cannot see the 2016 version that was ultimately deleted, this go at the article seems to be much stronger. Its best claim at notability seems to be Musiobio #11 but sourcing in article is YouTube and I couldn't find any RS to support. No RS is present in page (Zambia's Daily Mail likely would be but articles present are user generated). Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Barkeep49 According to you, Zambia Daily Mail is only reliable if the article is written by a paid staff of ZDM. Kelvin Kachingwe has been writing for ZDM for a long time now. So what exactly is your point? Cause really if you took time to actually read the article there are various references there. Regarding Newdiggers, tumfweko, zambian observes. All not reliable sources to you ? Vicmullar ( talk) 17:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC) — Vicmullar ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Vicmullar, the references are very poor – lots of links to music streaming sites (which don't prove the music is notable, simply that it exists) and blogs which don't pass WP:RS. It's not Barkeep49's opinion that only articles by paid staff count as reliable, it's Wikipedia's standard for reliable sources – please read WP:RS to see what sources are acceptable. The Zambian Observer and Tumfweko sites are exactly the same story, word-for-word, which probably means Tumfweko is a blog that copies news it finds on other outlets. In any case, the news story in question simply calls Mic Diggy "a fan" and says absolutely nothing about him... it doesn't even say that he is a musician himself and provides zero meaningful content. The two sources related to his supposed biggest performance fail to mention him at all, so there is no proof that he actually performed at the Mosi Day of Thunder. Richard3120 ( talk) 19:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Richard3120 ACTUALLY,THE ARTICLE daily-mail.co.zm/mic-diggy-signs-cd-run IS WRITEN BY A PAID ZDM STAFF MAKING IT A RS. SEE HIS ARTICLESS ON ZDM. MIC DIGGY WAS A FAN Of SLAP DEE, AND WAS INFLUED BY SLAP DEE AND ZONEFAM FROM WHAT I KNOW HENCE THE FAN STATEMENT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.77.149.190 ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC) — 41.77.149.190 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Checking Kelvin Kachingwe's credentials, you are right, he is a senior journalist at the Daily Mail so it passes RS. But still, this looks like the only useful RS in the whole article, and it needs multiple reliable sources to be considered for retention. I don't doubt that Mic Diggy might have been a fan of Slapdee, but there is nothing in the sources provided that prove that Mic Diggy is a musician himself, that he has made records, or that the tweet resulted in a long-running beef between the artists... so the sources provide no useful information and do not support any of the claims made in the article. Richard3120 ( talk) 13:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Edit: in fact, looking into it further, there's no evidence that this was a "highly publicized beef" between the pair – Slapdee reacted badly to some criticism, and that's it... there is no evidence that he had any idea who Mic Diggy is, or that he recorded a diss track in response to the criticism. The whole incident seems to have been blown up out of all proportion in Mic Diggy's mind, but there is no evidence that either Slapdee or the Zambian media took any notice of this supposed feud, apart from the one interview on Unza Radio... which is sourced to Mic Diggy's own YouTube channel and therefore fails as a primary source. Richard3120 ( talk) 15:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm sympathetic to the idea that Mic Diggy is notable in Zambia - judging notability in many countries is hard. However, despite good faith efforts by Vicmullar I don't think it has yet been proven to Wikipedia's defintion as Ricahrd3120 has shown here. I try not to get involved in AfD discussions where I've nominated (think frequently no one looks good there) but wanted to note that this analysis is in-line with mine. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I agree, which is why I don't want to jump and say "delete" just yet, because there may be reliable Zambian sources. I just wanted to note that as they stand, almost all the sources are bad ones, either linking to music streaming sites, Mic Diggy's YouTube channel, or obvious blogs, and that few of the claims in the article have any evidence supporting them. Hopefully the article creator or another editor can find some good sources to show this article is worth keeping, but unfortunately at the moment I can't. Richard3120 ( talk) 16:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Not to disagree with you folks, you both have valid points. I like the point Barkeep49 made saying "judging notability in many countries is hard" correct. Know why? i Don't even know where this discussion started from but hey, i was actually researching mic diggy, cause of a song i heard on radio last night. Saw the knowledge graph thingy clicked on it, cause i was curious that's how am here. Am not a fan of his just yet but i like selected songs. Point am trying to make is that, in Zambia if you do a little bit of digging you would say there is literally no celeb. what i mean is that the industry is small, no paparazzi non of that. And mostly its blogs that promote/talk about musicians alot. Most things including music, interviews are posted on youtube. And if you can randomly pic any zambian musician on here, 3/4 you will find a ZDM link somewhere, and ZDM don't just write about anyone. News papers rarely write about musicians Unless its a scandal. There's no big websites like in the US or any other western countries. Blogs do most of the publishing. And regarding the mosi day of thunder thingy, the chap was actually there, he performed under "Many more". I don't know if in other countries there's such a thing as many more, where a main act and various artists are allowed to support the show by performing 1 or 2 songs. And the ZDM article actually states that mic diggy is a musican. There are a lot of blog links i can share with you guys for the sake of seeing the picture not to change anything. And one thing i should say is that, if you both used this energy to actually, develop the article, then it would be better. Remember 2 is better than one and change start with you all. Am not a wikipedian i don't much of the rules here so i can't contribute. Peace hope you guys reach a better agreement

PS I don't know if this will help but these are some of the links to mic diggy's music, https://www.datafilehost.com/d/32826236, https://www.datafilehost.com/d/f49f780a https://www.datafilehost.com/d/3584de30 and the download numbers ain't bad. 10,000+ , 4000+, 8000+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.56.52.141 ( talk) 19:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

No, the download links don't help, that's just promotional spam and only proves his music exists, not that it's notable in any way. My cousin has music available on iTunes and Amazon, and she's not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article either. What makes you think we haven't made any effort to try and improve the article? We just haven't been able to find any more reliable sources apart from the ZDM one. Blogs won't be acceptable I'm afraid, and we can't take your word for it that Mic Diggy performed at Mosi Day of Thunder, we need a reliable source talking about his performance by name and in detail. Yes, a main act and support acts is exactly how it works in the US, UK and other countries... but if an act is only the support, that doesn't make them notable here either. If any Zambian editors can provide links to in-depth articles from reliable sources (not blogs) about Mic Diggy, we'd be glad to see them and it might make us change our minds. Richard3120 ( talk) 20:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Richard3120 I don't think they added the link to spam or promote anyone but to talk about "numbers" not your cousin. Anyways the reason Barkeep49 nominated the article was because according to them the ZDM article on Mic Diggy was not a reliable source. Now that we all know that it is, i don't see the reason the the deletion tag should be up. And i'll take time to summaries and edit out a few parts, till i get additional references. Regards Vicmullar ( talk) 03:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Just to clarify I have always hedged about ZDM - saying it likely is RS. Even if it is, one of the articles does not appear to be written by ZDM staff. The second article [66] is not about Mic Diggy (and doesn't mention him at all) so it doesn't help prove Mic is notable. My bottom line is that there is not sourcing available to prove he's notable and so my !vote remains delete. Best,

Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC) The article daily-mail.co.zm/mic-diggy-signs-cd-run was written by Kelvin Kachingwe and if you see his credentials, he is a senior journalist at the Daily Mail so it passes RS Richard3120 confirmed that. My vote is you remove the deletion unless you have any other agenda Vicmullar ( talk) 03:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Vicmullar, the requirement is for multiple independent sources, so we need more than just the one ZDM source. And it's not up to the nominator to remove the AfD tag, that will be done by the administrator once a discussion has taken place over the next couple of weeks, hopefully with the involvement of more editors, and a consensus has been reached about this article. Richard3120 ( talk) 03:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Saying the article has no sources is an understatement. I vote undelete. the article passes * Notability guide for musicians etc.

"Saying the article has no sources is an understatement" - nobody has said that, and you haven't shown how the article passes either of those guidelines. Richard3120 ( talk) 19:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment I have been able to dig out some sources. Here is this article about him published in 2015 by Lusaka Times ( Artist Profie : Upcoming Rapper Mic Dee), of course we all know about Zambia Daily [67], both RS news agencies in Zambia. Senegambianamestudy ( talk) 16:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure the Lusaka Times is a reliable source, actually – its "about us" page [68] describes it as an online platform where anyone can contribute items and the author "Kapa187" doesn't sound like a professional journalist's username. Richard3120 ( talk) 17:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • There is no such consensus designating Zambia Daily Mail a reliable source. I have not seen a valid argument towards its reliability here or elsewhere. You can't just declare it as such. And again, the WP:GNG requires multiple sources. At the very very lowest, that would be 2 sources required, though many editors require 3-5 to be convinced, especially in things like WP:BLPs, which have much stronger requirements for sourcing statements. Sergecross73 msg me 21:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment Sergecross73 i don't really think that just anyone can add content on Lusaka Times have you tried ? for arguments sake. Vicmullar ( talk) 19:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Sergecross73 didn't say that, I did – I based that on this direct quote from their website: "Lusakatimes also provides a platform for any Zambian who want their article published"... that doesn't sound like there is any editorial control over what articles appear on the website. Richard3120 ( talk) 19:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Correct. It sounds like it would fails WP:USERG. (Also, potentially WP:ROUTINE as well.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 12:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Richard3120 Please do further research before making assumptions. Vicmullar ( talk) 16:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Er, why should I assume the Lusaka Times is reliable when all the indications are that it isn't? Richard3120 ( talk) 20:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Richard has done sufficient research. You are the one who has made no valid argument towards the websites reliability. It doesn’t seem anyone in favor of keeping has any knowledge of Wikipedia’s standards for source reliability and subject notability at all. It’s all desperate grasping for straws and appeals to emotion. No valid argument has been presented yet. Sergecross73 msg me 00:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply

commentI don't think anyone is emotional here, its just that others fail to respect other people point of view. There are claims on this thread stating that ZDM musical articles can not be RS without notable sources. Lusakatimes is actually a RS in Zambia. Check the wikipedia List of newspapers in Zambia. So according to your arguments you deem Lusakatimes unworthy because its about section states "Lusakatimes also provides a platform for any Zambian who want their article published" You should note that Zambia is a big country and its population isn't 100 or 1000 people. PS there are alot of musicians in Zambia, they do provide the platform to anyone meeting their criterion of notability. I think you should contact them and find out more from them. And secondly since when do you judge the professionalism of journalist based on their names ? what's next? skin color?. According to you we are all ignorant now ? please lets learn to respect each other. I don't agree with your methods but i respect you

This response is exactly what I’m talking about. The above comment gave zero valid reasons for being reliable, and then started a random musing if determining sources reliability will somehow lead to bigotry and racism. That’s about as emotional of a response possible. Its not just a matter of not seeing eye to eye; there’s no past precedent for any of the things you’re saying here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment i came across this https://zambianeye.com/mic-diggy-apologies-to-slap-d-on-znbc-radio-4s-hip-hop-eardrum/ hope it helps and is a RS

Chabota Kanguya abeg, typical Crab mentality.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 20:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Antti Litmanen

Antti Litmanen (  | 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:PROD removed. His notability is derived from the non-notable band Babylon Whores, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babylon Whores. The person's role in Mana Mana is very minor. No evidence that WP:MUSICBIO is met. I don't think this is a good redirect to either of the bands. — Kusma ( t· c) 19:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 04:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 04:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 11:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable. And he's "just" a guitarist not even the lead for the bands. The singer Ike Vil has a lot more mentions in sources and even he doesn't have an article. -- Pudeo ( talk) 19:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Some debate about whether WP:G11 applies or not, but unanimous agreement to delete via non-CSD means. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The Typing Game

The Typing 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)

In my opinion, the article's only reliable source that establishes notability is SmallBizTrends, and even this is of dubious reliability; the other pages are primary sources (e.g. Google Play) or not professional websites (e.g. Bored Panda). For this reason, I declined the submission at AfC two days ago, but the creator—well within their right—moved this into the mainspace with no further edits.

Pinging Firefly and Heliosxeros, who also reviewed the draft at AfC (when it had the same sources it currently has). — Bilorv (c) (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • There are many AfC submissions that by-passes the submission process and jumps to mainspace. This article in particular, not only that it doesn't have reliable sources, it doesn't give in-depth in terms of notability. Hence, delete. EROS message 12:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment ​ Fair enough. I think we disagree on what exclusively promotional means – for me, the entire article would not look out of place on an ad for the software, and all of the citations, save one, are fundamentally promotional, there is sufficient reason to apply WP:IAR. Since there is a product description which might be considered encyclopedic, I agree that there's room for interpretation – though I think the last paragraph is definitely promotional, being essentially download links, and the last sentence of the product description still might be. It looks like it'll be a moot point though, since this AfD will be closing soon anyway.—  Alpha3031 ( t • c) 13:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • IAR almost never applies to the deliberately strict CSD criteria; that's why PROD and AfD exist. I think this is important to bear in mind in any future tagging you do: PROD and AfD are the options for pages which do not unambiguously meet a CSD criterion. — Bilorv (c) (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I realize that CSD criteria are not to be ignored, rather my interpretation is that the whole speedy delete thing is already IAR and SNOW. Yeah, I agree that if there's an objection then it's no longer speedy-able. It's probably better to have the discussion sometimes anyway.—  Alpha3031 ( t • c) 14:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 20:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Mike's Hard Lemonade Co.

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

No evidence of any notability and searches reveal very little better. Two of the refs are their own web-site. Another ref is an item about the sale of the company and the other is clearly a press release. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   10:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Rhododendrites; it's a well-known and widely-available drink brand, covered by Newsweek as long ago as 2001. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • More sources from 2001 [69] [70] and 2002 [71] [72]; and a mention from more recently. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Addendum Sifting through LexisNexis, for the fun of it, I found 995 exact-text matches for "Mike's Hard Lemonade", including this 2013 piece in the New York Times. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Addendum to the addendum I should add that of the 995 matches on LexisNexis, 806 are for newspapers, and 21 are for "industry trade press". There's a strong representation from Canada, particularly in the earlier years; e.g., articles in The Vancouver Sun from 3 August 2001 and 2 December 2003, and The Toronto Star on 19 April 1998. The older stuff isn't all online, that I can tell, apart from archival databases. An amusing quote from a 28 August 1999 profile in the Financial Post: "'The focus groups have shown us that the use of a man's name, and particularly a name that sounds down-to-earth or 'basic,' coupled with the word 'hard,' creates a very compelling image for younger members of the adult population." More recently, there was a fair bit of reporting on their $350-million acquisition by Labatt. Many of the hits are just mentions, where Mike's Hard Lemonade is used as a prototypical example of an alcopop (but it does seem to be one of the two or three standard examples). Some go into more depth. I will try to sift further if I get a chance; after all, what better use is there for institutional access to LexisNexis? XOR'easter ( talk) 22:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep between the company and the brand Mike's Hard Lemonade (a redirect to that page), there's certainly enough coverage. Rhododendrites and XOR'easter have found links so I don't have to. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the above found sources. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the above arguemnts amount to WP:MUSTBESOURCES. It's not enough to deduce they're out there somewhere. The sources have to be identified and cited. The ones offered so far are general articles about the beverage business that mention Mike's Hard Lemonade alongside several other brands. Or they are superficial routine coverage, such as "Mike's Hard Lemonade introduces 8-ounce cans", clocking in at all of 243 words. Those sources fail WP:CORP and WP:GNG. This is a run-of-the-mill company that, minus the breathless boosterism the fluff reporting, basically does business the same as any other brand in the same niche. What facts we do have about it can be placed in an article like Malt drink, since what we have here is a typical example of a company that makes a niche beverage. I'd flip, and support keeping it I were shown sources (non-trival) that met all of the minimum criteria at WP:ORGCRIT. Right now this company's claim to fame is that they have grown to a certain size. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I thought this would be obvious, but Dennis Bratland makes a good point about the sources being pretty weak. However, my search turned up enough coverage about its ads to convince me this isn't an obvious delete, but is a weak keep. I thought that article talking about the ABC affiliate in Chicago not airing its ads, but showing its competitors ads, was interesting and should count towards the coverage. I also think that being an industry leader should also be taken into account, but I could be wrong about that. I think the coverage squeaks by for notability. Sandals1 ( talk) 14:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Might be a "leader" in the sub-sub-sub niche of malted lemonade alcoholic beverages, but that niche is not an "industry". And whatever the brand is a leader in, our sources are the ones who should be telling us that matters. If being a "leader" in whatever category you want to call it is significant, then we should we reading significant coverage about Mike's Hard Lemonade, with that the main topic and the coverage telling us things about Mike's Hard Lemonade. They could be the least selling product in their category and be notable if the sources cover them. The article about the rejected ad is mostly about the TV station that rejected the ad, and about other companies who also had rejected or controversial ads. It's about a dozen paragraphs long and only three or four sentences are actually about Mike's.

      Somebody needs to clearly cite even one news, magazine, or book source with significant, in-depth coverage of Mike's Hard Lemonade itself, not other things, and not routine announcements and trivial coverage, enumerated at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of trivial coverage. It shound't be this hard to scrape together sources for a topic if it is really notable. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 20:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Agnes Kagure Kariuki

Agnes Kagure Kariuki (  | 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 clear evidence of any notability. She has won local business awards in the Insurance industry - great, but not notable in Wikipedia terms. Another ref is an interview - not independent, another is her own Facebook page. Her "fame" is within a small niche of the insurance industry. Appears to fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   09:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. After chancing upon the article yesterday, I was also preparing an AfD nomination for it today. Although listed as a notable businesswoman (but fails under WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO), her real claim is being included on a list of 22 potential replacements for the position of deputy governor of Nairobi. While not initially selected (Miguna Miguna was but then found to be ineligible as a dual citizen), she appears to still be in the running with the usual list of supporters and opponents, some of whom appear to be editing on Wikipedia. Even if she is selected and appointed to this position, she would still fail WP:POLITICIAN as it is not a 'notable' position. Loopy30 ( talk) 12:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The two of you have probably been looking at a version of the article that had recently been edited in a biased manner, which removed a significant amount of information and several citations to reliable sources that discussed the topic. The subject of the article has been involved in high-profile land disputes that have been the subject of rulings by the National Land Commission and the Environment and Land court, and has been accused of other financial improprieties, all of which has resulted in significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There is a single-purpose account that has recently been trying to remove certain information from the article and replace it with promotional phrasing. I suggest looking at it again (and perhaps reviewing the article history in case that happens again). — BarrelProof ( talk) 19:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I take your point. However, being a criminally corrupt individual does not, by itself, convey notability. I remain unconvinced that the restored text and its sources add sufficiently to the article to pass the notability bar. I would however agree that should the article be retained, the restored text should also be retained.   Velella   Velella Talk   20:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Since the above remarks, I just added some more information to the article, including citations to three more reliable news sources that indicate both that she was a major focus of consideration as deputy governor and that her high-profile court disputes were causing difficulty in her consideration. I think it is clear that she has received significant in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. — BarrelProof ( talk) 20:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I did indeed look at the complete history of the article first before composing my comment above. While there were/are SPA's adding biased (or at least unsourced) information both positive and negative, my real concern is the notability of the article subject in toto. The article claims notability as a businesswoman but does not support that. As a politician (which she is not), the position for which she is being considered (amongst 21 other people on the list) is not a notable position. As a party to land disputes and financial improprieties, if these cases are notable, then it is these court cases that should have a page, not the individual. Loopy30 ( talk) 21:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment moved here from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Agnes Kagure Kariuki, since it seems to be trying to influence this discussion:
Please the author who put this up was biased and quoted a court case which is on going, which is illegal in my country Kenya, the subject is a mother of two and the reference to her in such demeaning words is damaging and full of malice, surely we have to protect living human beings from such auditors who have no facts apart from bloggers articles, please administrators delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge Cloud ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Fair enough, I was referring to an article about the office itself but you are right. SWL36 ( talk) 20:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 10:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

List of The Edge Chronicles characters

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

Fancraft, no notability Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages.

Twig (character) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Quintinius Verginix (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Undertown (The Edge Chronicles) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sanctaphrax (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Riverrise (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Geography of the Edge Chronicles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 14:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Voika

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

Another one of these crappy articles. Mass created by a bot. All Starzynka articles should be evaluated. » Shadowowl | talk 19:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've undone Shadowowl's own unexplained non-admin "keep" closure,see WP:BADNAC. If there is no further comment, this AfD may be closed by somebody else as withdrawn.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:GEOLAND is a guideline, not a policy.
- WP:GEOLAND says "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low."
Let's look at the core of it, i.e: "typically presumed to be notable"
There's nothing typical about how this article came to exist.
- It was created by Starzynka, without honest or deep thought about notability of the creation.
But let's pretend to ignore that, and read "typically presumed to be notable" as if it says "always presumed to be notable".
- The whole point of having an AfD, is to investigate an article's merit. That is, not to go by presumption, but to actually go locate & :evaluate evidence of merit.
In short:
- A guideline is not policy.
- The word "typically" is not a synonym for "always".
- The word "presumed" is not a synonym for "assured".
DexterPointy ( talk) 21:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Nothing notable about this; it has a zipcode, and multiple weather forecasts are available.
    From https://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voika (and more): It had a population of 203 (at end of 2011), there's a tiny local history museum, and it no longer has a railroad stop (removed in 2008). In the village is "Voika Kabelimägi", which is noted as an archaeological site, by virtue of it being a former cemetery.
    If this obscure village is notable, then I'll consider writing an article about "The cotton club" (aka. the drawer where I keep my underwear)
    DexterPointy ( talk) 22:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is a gazetteer per the notability of geographic features page. Since this is a verified place, the presumption here is absolutely correct. Compare to a number of AfDs regarding Somali populated places which could not be verified. SportingFlyer talk 02:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. All villages are notable per GEOLAND. There is a presumption that sufficient offline sources exist. This presumption appears to be a good one, since I happen to know for a fact that many local history books about certain parts of Britain, never mind Estonia, have never been digitised. Bear in mind that digitised online books tend to come from large university libraries in the USA, with all the systematic biases that implies. No comment on whether GNG is satisfied in this case. James500 ( talk) 05:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    @ James500: You just voted Keep on presumption alone!
    The same guideline also says: "geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Therefore, the notability of some geographical features (places, roadways, objects, etc.) may be called into question.".
    -- DexterPointy ( talk) 08:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Again, Wikipedia is a gazetteer, meaning that per GEOLAND if a populated place exists, an article is proper even when sourcing is minimal, insignificant, or in a different language. Based on Estonian census results and other sources including your own comments, Voika clearly is a real village - and the fact this was called into question have made the stub a better article than other villages in its vicinity. For instance, see: [74] [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Borani_Village] [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bonkuwal] or even [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orbitello,_Kansas] and as an example of a GEOLAND article failing WP:V [75]. SportingFlyer talk 09:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Wikipedia is NOT a gazetteer.
    The 1'st pillar of WP says:
    Wikipedia is an encyclopedia : Our encyclopedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.
Combing features of a gazetteer into an article is absolutely fine (and should be done), but an article MUST become encyclopedic: An article with no prospect of ever becoming an encyclopedic article, shall be deleted.
Note: WP:NOTEVERYTHING is policy!
-- DexterPointy ( talk) 11:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It can never be true to say that there is no prospect of developing a stub about a settlement into an encyclopaedic article. We have many thousands of good articles about small villages. If you're just saying this because it's in Estonia then that is in breach of WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It most certainly can be true: If no evidence of notability exist, then no such evidence can ever be provided.
There is a requirement for evidence to be produced, and the requirement is systemic to everything in the Universe, not just Estonia.
I have looked and have not managed to find the teapot, and if you insist that it's really there, then you got the burden of providing the evidence.
-- DexterPointy ( talk) 14:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Russian Imperial Union Order

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

Lack of notability. Alex Spade ( talk) 11:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 11:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 11:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma msg 19:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 11:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:25, 28 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 as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 20:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

TJ Rogers

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

Does not meet WP:NBIO nor WP:NSKATEBOARDER. » Shadowowl | talk 21:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 11:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment He's currently ranked 88th in the world [77]. I would say that's not high enough to show notability, but I don't know if he's been ranked higher. My search found a lot of ghits, but not much in the way of significant coverage. Most of the coverage was videos and many didn't seem to be independent. I'm not a skateboarding fan, though I appreciate the skill it requires, and right now I don't have the time to do the research required to cast a well-informed vote. Papaursa ( talk) 20:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:25, 28 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. ansh 666 20:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Madison House (Kincardine, Ontario)

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

Poorly sourced article about a house, whose only potential claim of notability is that it's purported to be haunted. But the only references present here are a ghosthunter's Blogspot blog and a tourist directory, which are not reliable sources for the purposes of establishing a house's notability. Haunted or not, houses are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but this is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get them in the door. Bearcat ( talk) 01:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 01:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 01:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - I came to this thinking delete. The only other source I could find about "Madison" was [78], which is primary (some kind of B&B) and weak as a source. However, in searching the address (343 Durham Market Square), the house is registered as a historic place in Ontario - [79] p. 8, [80], [81], [82]. However, it probably should not stay at the current title. Chris857 ( talk) 16:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Even a registered historic place still requires reliable source coverage, and isn't handed any automatic freebie on purely primary sources just for existing. Bearcat ( talk) 17:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply
No, they don't. GNG is media coverage, not government reports — if government reports conferred a GNG pass all by themselves, we would have to keep an article about every single building that exists on earth including residential houses. Bearcat ( talk) 22:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
It appears you have a fundamental misunderstanding of GNG and what types of sources are considered evidence of notability. GNG explicitly states sources of evidence of notablity include "but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals," not simply the ambiguous term "media." -- Oakshade ( talk) 00:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
No, I understand GNG correctly. For example, construction companies always have to file construction plans with a city planning commission before they can build any building or structure at all, and then the city planning commission has to vote to approve or reject those plans, or demand further changes to comply with regulations — meaning that every single structure that exists can always be sourced to a government report, because no structure ever comes into existence without being documentable to city planning commission files. You can't even put a granny suite in your backyard without the city planning commission having a file on that — so every granny suite in existence is documentable to government reports too. But we can't simply extend notability to every building that exists — so a building's notability cannot rest on routine sources that every building could always show, and has to rest on a class of sourcing that doesn't routinely exist for every building: namely, being singled out for special dedicated attention by media. Bearcat ( talk) 16:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
You're confusing routine building permits/applications and files that all buildings have with in-depth analysis and historical context reports' that are not just documents on file at city hall. Your granny suite in your backyard does not have a government in-depth report of the analysis of the historical significance of it as this topic does. If you'd like to change GNG to not accept reports by government agencies as evidence of notability, you need to make you proposal and case on the GNG talk page, not push your new agenda on a single AfD. -- Oakshade ( talk) 17:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete In order to pass WP:GEOFEAT: Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. I don't see the reliable third-party sourcing here yet. The government documents that grant historical significance appear primary - perhaps I'm wrong on this. If precedent exists that all historically notable houses pass GEOFEAT please ping me. SportingFlyer talk 07:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Government reports on private entities such as this location are not primary. -- Oakshade ( talk) 16:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I disagree. Three of the four sources are from the city of Kincardine, which is the city that authorized its historical heritage, and are the documentation of the way it became a heritage site. The other is a walking tour of all the historic properties of Kincardine. Are you making the argument all of these heritage properties in this small Ontario town deserve their own wikipedia article based on WP:GNG? Because they should all have this level of sourcing. Even assuming the references are not primary, the sources are trivial - and the reason this house has an article in the first place is for a completely different reason, because it was listed on some haunted ghost tour blog or something. A historic property can be notable, and fairly easily so - but a property cannot pass WP:GNG if the only sources are the ones which reference the fact it's historical in the first place. SportingFlyer talk 21:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
This is easy. "The city that authorized the historical heritage" is not the property. The property is not the city, not owned by the city nor a city government entity. A property easily passes WP:GNG if the only sources are the ones which reference the fact it's historical, provided the coverage is in-depth as it is in this case. And in-depth historical analysis is not "trivial".-- Oakshade ( talk) 22:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
It's more difficult than you make it out to be per WP:PRIMARY. The local government ordinance is nowhere close to being an independent source. It's not as if the municipality is publishing information about this house specifically: this type of coverage would be expected for all heritage listed properties in the town. There's no other coverage of it anywhere. Not every historical building gets a notability pass for Wikipedia because it's historical, especially when the only documentation about its history is the type of documentation which exists for any historic building in any jurisdiction by the local government, which is what we have here. (along with a town "walking tour" which appears to list all historic properties in town.) SportingFlyer talk 14:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
You seem to be blending the claim that the government sources of this property are "primary" with regular notability arguments. It makes no difference if the government makes reports on all historic properties or just one as the government is still not the property and therefore not primary. Every National Register of Historic Places property would be considered "primary" under that scenario which of course they aren't. If you'd like to say "I don't think all properties the government considers historic are notable," fine. But to claim government reports are "primary" to private properties is simply false. -- Oakshade ( talk) 16:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm simply interpreting WP:PRIMARY properly: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. — which is what the Kincadine local ordinance and property description is. SportingFlyer talk 16:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Cherry picking a subsection of Wikipedia:No original research to attempt to show a government source is a primary one to a private property really looks like grabbing at staws. That quote is meant to discourage original research, which of course this is not. Just that the secondary source is geographically close to the topic doesn't magically transform it into a "primary" source. And I'm surprised I have to say this, this property is not an "event." Anyway, since you're valuing the content on the NOR page and classifying this topic as an "event," WP:SECONDARY states a secondary source "provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event." The property is "at least one step removed" from the government reports and those reports are the very definition of WP:SECONDARY. -- Oakshade ( talk) 22:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I feel like you're grasping at straws to keep an article which should clearly be deleted, to be honest. Let's recap: Does this property get a notability waiver for being a Canadian National Heritage Site? Not from any available sources, no. Does it get a notability waiver for being an Ontario Heritage Site? No, as there are many of these sites. Perhaps this notable enough for a list. The only available sources shown for a keep are primary sources showing the property is an Ontario Heritage Site, which can be expected for all properties on the Ontario Heritage Site list (I'm excluding the one or two sentence blurb from the walking tour brochure.) No other sources are available... and again, the reason this article exists is to promote a "haunted house." They may not be primary sources since the owners of the house didn't write about the house and try to get it published. SportingFlyer talk 06:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Now you've changed the subject as your "primary" argument holds no weight. Sorry, it was you who was grasping at straws with that attempted application of WP:NOR for your false argument that government reports on this private property were "primary." The in-depth coverage from the detail analysis of the government reports easily show this passing WP:GNG. Your false "those are primary sources" argument didn't work. If you think this or any article "should clearly be deleted" then try to build a consensus for your opinion which doesn't seem to be happening. -- Oakshade ( talk) 19:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over again. The government sources aren't primary to the house, but they are primary to your concept of notability (that the house is notable because the government has made it a local heritage site), and if we accept them, we erode WP:GEOFEAT by allowing features included at the sub-national heritage level to be included in the encyclopedia. Give me a secondary source that's more than a couple sentences. SportingFlyer talk 08:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Now you're not even reading correctly. The property is notable because of in-depth coverage from secondary sources, in this case government reports. The government is secondary source even by your standards of applying the WP:NOR policy which you linked to above. Now that you're finally admitting the government sources aren't primary to the house, let's move on. -- Oakshade ( talk) 15:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
First, this should not be outright deleted, because merge to the list-article is available as an alternative to deletion. It does not yet seem to be included in that list-article; it should be added. I myself am not familiar enough with Canadian historic places to understand why it is not yet listed there; User:Magicpiano is an editor who has developed that list-article and others like it and I would be glad if they could comment here.
I prefer "Keep" over "Merge" because the information available, i.e. this source given above, suggests to me it is equivalent to U.S. National Register of Historic Places eligibility ("Italianate architecture – low pitched mansard roof – centre tower on the front façade – windows with rounded headers and decorative keystones and a verandah with Greek columns – built in 1870’s by Thomas C. Rooklodge whose family operated the “pork factory” / Designation By-law – 4641 Date Designated: January 3, 1985 ). It would be nice to have a separate nomination document about it, and I presume such exists, [it does exist] although it is designated by the province of Ontario [by local government] and is apparently not a Canadian national historic site. -- Doncram ( talk) 17:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC) --17:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Doncram: It's not equivalent to the national register of historic places: see Ontario Heritage Act. It shouldn't be on the list you mention. I would be a keep if more historic notability could be shown; this is just a property which a local municipality has declared a local heritage site, but there are many of these sites in this town alone. SportingFlyer talk 17:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
(ec) I was going to say, in fact there is separate nomination document (linked above) sufficing to provide information to develop the article more, and IMO comparable to U.S. National Register documentation. Based on photo of the house, I would have called it Second Empire in style, with elements of Italianate as Second Empire buildings often have, but the summary above was just calling it Italianate. However the Walking tour brochure does term it Second Empire, so that can be used in the article.
I do think it should be included in the Bruce County historic places list article, which is supposed to cover sites designated "locally, provincially, territorially, nationally, or by more than one level of government." Given your assertion I am not sure if it is province-level or not (what does according to Ontario Heritage Act mean, I will go look that up, yes [okay i see the provincial act gives authority to local government] ) but it is at least locally-designated. We do have list-articles about local registers in the U.S., and about individual places on just a local register if there is adequate information, as there is here. There's plenty about it, IMO. This is fine to Keep and develop. -- Doncram ( talk) 17:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
To be clear, all of the locally designated historic places can/should be covered in the Bruce County list-article or a separately-broken out list-article about places in Kincardine alone. They don't have to get separate articles, necessarily, but they can get separate articles if there's enough info available, as there is here IMO. -- Doncram ( talk) 17:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
And about the "primary" quality of the sources, as Oakshade notes above, they are not primary to the property; calling them secondary is more appropriate. SportingFlyer is right that as local sources they are not quite as good as sources that have undergone more levels of professional review, and none is guaranteed here. U.S. NRHP listings do get some state-level review reflected in modifications to the application forms. But state-level or local-level source forms are in fact used directly in many NRHP listings, with or without any further documents from higher state or national levels (although there may have been higher review in fact or at least potentially). So we have to go partly on the apparent quality of the documents, which seem okay to me. -- Doncram ( talk) 17:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
To settle one question, I just began adding Kincardine locally-designated historic sites to the list-article. Note the list-article has a municipal listing identifier column which I am trying to use, but having some trouble (discuss at Talk:List of historic places in Southwestern Ontario#Kincardine local historic sites). There is no "Notes" or "Description" column, so it is not feasible to merge all available material, even to give a single descriptive word like "Italianate", into the list-article. Unless the standardized format of this Ontario historic places list-article is to be changed, it seems we need to "Keep" the article to allow description. -- Doncram ( talk) 18:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
This conversation should occur on the talk page of that article. I disagree with what you've done, as that list is for registered historic places as searchable on [83] - there is only one registered building in Kincardine, and it's not this property. This is why I'm fighting for a delete, where I am probably a lean keep on geographical AfDs: all we have to go on is a primary document for a provincial heritage registry, not something which would automatically be notable. SportingFlyer talk 18:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Also, this document: [84] says Kingston has over 1,000 places on the Ontario Heritage register, but only 120 on the national register. I can't find anything showing this is on the national register, and in the absence of documents on the property that don't relate to its local listing/aren't primary, I don't think it can be kept. SportingFlyer talk 18:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Okay maybe the Kincardine ones should be in a separate new list-article, and maybe not in that Southwestern Ontario list-article, and that is being discussed there, including with more info about the Kingston example. However IMHO there certainly should/will be a list of Kincardine municipal historic sites somewhere. So the existing Madison House article will not be an orphan; it will be listed in context somewhere. However we still have more reliable enough info about the architecture and history of this house than will be covered in such list-article, so keeping a separate article still makes sense. Of course we should drop most or all of the rubbish about being haunted.
Maybe we should not get too bogged down in whether to call the available official coverage "primary" vs. "secondary". I suppose you can call it primary if it is written without including explicit sourcing to other documents, and I think these do not include lists of references. However there are 70,000 Wikipedia articles about U.S. NRHP places which mostly are sourced just to documents relating to their listing, which you may call "primary". Many of the NRHP documents do reference other sources; many do not. You can't be too harsh about "primary" sources; they are allowed in Wikipedia as long as they're not being stretched to make disputable points. I don't think it is controversial to say the Madison House has elements of Italianate style, etc., based on the local listing saying so, plus the photos which show those elements to the informed editors. -- Doncram ( talk) 20:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Well, we've decided that NRHP and Canadian national historic places can get notability waivers — in this instance, we're dealing with a property whose only sourcing is its addition to a local heritage list. Whether an article on the local heritage list for a 12,000 person town is notable is not for me to say at this point, and I don't mind if the information is captured somewhere, but there's nowhere near enough to keep this particular article at this moment. SportingFlyer talk 06:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the very lengthy discussion above, including a *potential* ambiguity in GNG vs GEOFEAT being discussed, I'm going to relist this again
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final re-list; should be closed as no consensus if no editors' comment subsequent to this...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment What, is this still open. Source(s) were found to develop the article. It is listed on a local historic register, and there is plenty of info to be reported. The comment that there is "nowhere near enough to keep this particular article" is just wrong, IMHO. I would say "obvious keep" at this point. -- Doncram ( talk) 06:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the sourcing does not justify a stand alone article. Although that is true for the majority of articles we have on buildings. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Chris857, Oakshade and doncram. Satisfies GNG. Registered under the Ontario Heritage Act. The sources are fine. The "registered by local government" argument leaves me completely unmoved. If it is a listed building, it is listed building. Deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R, since this could be merged and redirected to the area in which it is located, Kincardine, Ontario. (For the avoidance of doubt, Durham Market Square or Street or whatever, Kincardine has coverage apart from this building (eg By-law 518), so an article on this Durham Market location is an option for compromise). James500 ( talk) 07:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE. I dug deeper into the interwebs by removing the word "Ontario" and finding several potentially good sources, including books. If it's "listed" provincially, that should be in the article before this AfD is closed. Bearian ( talk) 16:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ansh 666 20:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Google Code Jam

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

Subject of numerous minor mentions, but fails to gain any significant coverage in reliable sources, thus failing WP:NEVENT. A very few sources like [85] are semi-reliable, slightly promotional or don't give any general view on the Google Code Jam, instead barely focusing on a single edition of the competition or conducting an interview with one or more participants. WP:NORG can apply here with regards to the content of the sources that are promotional. There is no valid merge target, since it's organized by Google, and the Code Jam probably deserves no more than a sentence on the Google article. wumbolo ^^^ 12:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 13:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - This is a very difficult one to decide on.
    Clearly, this is not something which gets mentioned in common reliable mainstream media.
    The sources writing about this, i.e. online technical magazines etc., may fail being classified as reliable & independent.
    Websites, which does have articles about this, make a living of their traffic, and the brand Google is great for attracting visitors (generating revenue). This in turn means that sources may have written about Google Code Jam, solely because it carries the Google brand.
    For something to be of encyclopedic value, then it must have an audience, aka. readers. It's not enough that someone what to write about something, in a (more or less) vain hope of attracting readers.
    A further complication is cyclic referencing. Example: A writer working at magazine X, reads a press release from Google about Google Code Jam, and notice that WP got an article about it. The writer then decide to write an independent article about it, because the existence of a WP article is evidence (though not proof) of notability. Since WP editors can't generally tell why articles about a topic was created, it's easy to see how a cyclic state of notability gets to be.
    Finally, as far as what Google Code Jam is, it's actually as much of a Google promotion as it is a real competition.
    -- DexterPointy ( talk) 13:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Unsure about this one. Yes, the article could describe the structure of the competition better. Nevertheless, GCJ is a major competition, and I would say it's fairly well-known among contest coders. That's not really a good argument for keeping it, of course. Another factor is that some of the coverage is probably just routine coverage, because this contest is related to Google. Enterprisey ( talk!) 06:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • DeleteMerge to Competitive programming, after going over the sources again. I don't think the competition has received significant coverage. If it were really a notable competition, we would've seen some articles focused on it in the technology-focused news media. As it is, we only have passing mentions in some books and the 2014 Mashable article, which looks pretty routine to me. Enterprisey ( talk!) 19:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    Changed to Merge after DexterPointy pointed out (heh) the better option. Enterprisey ( talk!) 19:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving credence to Coffman's Google Books' results, while the discussion seems to be tending towards delete, giving it another re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:17, 28 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. ansh 666 20:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

La Demoiselle de magasin

La Demoiselle de magasin (  | 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 encyclopedic. A one-line article, notability close to zero, and nearly 8 years of being a useless stub.
The article had a grand total of 177 views for the entire year of 2017, and those probably mostly due to error by people looking for the painting, not this play.
-- DexterPointy ( talk) 10:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Comment for closing admin :
    The user, who created this article, was indefinite blocked in Oct.2010 for abusing multiple accounts.
    Before that, the user ( Starzynka) had created a great number of articles.
    I picked one at random, and ... articles seemingly created without any care for notability.
    I bet a long cruft list can be compiled.
    -- DexterPointy ( talk) 10:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
And not just articles about obscure literary works; he also seemed to have taken pride in creating an article for nearly every house in Serbia.
: e.g. Kravlji Do which is village w. a population of 355 people.
Do you know of a way to automate cleaning up this mess?
-- DexterPointy ( talk) 20:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ DexterPointy: Maybe everything can be draftified just like that happened to 02Blythed's cricket stubs. I don't see that happen to the village stubs though (not the village parts which you mentioned), as there are too many it exists people who will defend those stubs. -- » Shadowowl | talk 11:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The conversation about Serbian villages etc doesn't belong on this particular page, but yes, populated places are presumed notable according to WP:GEOLAND, so you could probably expect some people quoting policy. Mortee ( talk) 19:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for failing notability and verifiability. Zero sources for a play that's been around for 105 years. If notable of inclusion as a stand alone article it should not have been hard to find some RS since then. Blue Riband► 02:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
To be fair, many sources from 1913 would not be available online (yet). 96.127.242.226 ( talk) 04:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment - Not proof of notability, you're jumping to conclusion.
"Along Came Ruth" is a silent movie, a MGM production from 1924 (and it's also a lost movie).
An American silent movie, can not be auto-equated with a French play.
It's perfectly fair to mention the French play in the article for "Along Came Ruth", but the French play itself needs its notability proven.
(Parents also don't automatically become notable, just because their children gains notability.)
-- DexterPointy ( talk) 02:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I search and found only a few snippet views in google Books of the fact that the play exists. There are probably reviews and sources out there, but they are not digitized yet. 96.127.242.226 ( talk) 04:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, or merge into Along Came Ruth. As Eastmain pointed out, this was adapted into an English-language play, which turns out to have been produced by Henry W. Savage with at least one song by Irving Berlin. That was then turned into a silent film. In the case of books, being adapted into a notable film is itself a sign of notability ( WP:NBOOKS #3). I'd say that applies to plays as well. As the IP above points out, most RS are likely to be offline given the play's age. The alternative, since we haven't identified specific, in-depth, secondary coverage yet, is to merge into the existing article about the film, but discussing two plays and a film in one article feels slightly clunky. I wouldn't object to that but I would object to a flat deletion. Mortee ( talk) 19:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:12, 28 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. ansh 666 20:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

St. Xavier's Higher Secondary School, Thoothukudi

St. Xavier's Higher Secondary School, Thoothukudi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG The Banner  talk 08:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 10:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 10:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 10:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete lacks the independent, reliable sources required to establish notability. 96.127.242.226 ( talk) 18:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Most schools this age are notable and it is easy to find sources to demononstatre WP:NORG. This school is an exception. I was unable to find good sources in either English or Tamil. The has a few more sources, but they appear weak via machine translation. I suspect that there are offline Tamil language sources that would demonstrate notability, but until such sources are located, this article should be deleted. — BillHPike ( talk, contribs) 22:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've also been having trouble finding sources, at least any that do not appear to be Wikipedia mirrors, or just mentions in passing in non-reliable sources. I can't even verify that the school is still open, and the school's web page is dead. Note that anyone looking for sources should also try searching using with the English place name "Tuticorin" not just with "Thoothukudi". I'll hold off !voting to see if anyone had more luck finding sources than I did. Meters ( talk) 23:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
They have a Facebook page with a recent post, so I imagine they are still open. RS are another issue. 96.127.242.226 ( talk) 04:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
This might be used to confirm its existence, though no date is given here. Jzsj ( talk) 18:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Just existing is not good enough any more. The notability has to be proven. The Banner  talk 18:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm not saying they are closed, or that if they were open it would be sufficient, just that I can't even verify that they are still open. I wouldn't accept the school listing page as proof. Looking at the directory information http://www.southindiaonline.com/tamilnadu/tuticorin/ I can see that the page has not been updated since 10 December 2010. As for the Facebook page, it does not appear to be an official school page, but rather an alumni page. It has only had five posts since 2014: a group photo from 2009; a spam request for a kidney; some undated building photos; a job posting, and not one that would be useful to a new graduate; and some memorabilia from more than 25 years ago. This is typical of the type of traffic on alumni sites, and is certainly not evidence that the school is open.   Meters ( talk) 18:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Doesn't "once notable, always notable" apply here? In that case, whether they are open now or not would not matter. 96.127.242.226 ( talk) 22:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Please read what I said. I didn't say that it should be deleted because it is not open, or for any other reason. I reserved comment on that. We're having trouble showing notability, and I merely pointed out that the sources are so weak that I can't even tell if it is still open. I asked for help finding sources on the school. So far no-one has provided anything usable. If you found something better than the almost dead alumni Facebook page you gave us then please provide it. Meters ( talk) 01:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, a reliable source that the school has been around since 1884 would go a long way to showing notability. Unfortunately, that claim may not to be correct. The cited source is dead, and while this ref mentions the school and 1884 the context is actually in reference to different school which moved in 1884, and later ran into enrollment problems because of competition from St Xavier and others..
So there's a Tamil Wikipedia article. That's nice. It does not make the subject notable, and more than the Tamil editors arguing that the existence of an English Wikipedia article shows the notability of the subject for inclusion in the Tamil Wikipedia would. The contents of the Tamil article also do not help. It is nothing but a translation of the English Wikipedia article from June 2017. Before I realized that I started to check the refs that are in the Tamil article that are not in this article, and the first one I tried was a piece of malware infested crap. Meters ( talk) 19:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - We keep high schools because experience shows that, with enough research, sources can almost invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. English Google is a poor tool for finding sources on schools in the Indian sub-continent. Very few have much of an Internet presence. We need to avoid systemic bias and allow time for local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated. Several sources have already been found which is a good start. Just Chilling ( talk) 21:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, one passing mention and two book covers. Systematic bias in this case is the deliberate lowering of notability standards to find an excuse to keep the article. The Banner  talk 21:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC) And the same happens with others schools on other continents reply

References

  1. ^ R. Sinnakani (2007). Tamil Nadu State: Thoothukudi District. ... Government of Tamil Nadu, Commissioner of Archives and Historical Research. p. 1006. Retrieved 18 July 2018.
  2. ^ Tuticorin deep sea harbour project: souvenir. Tuticorin Harbour Development Council. 1964. p. 119. Retrieved 18 July 2018.
  • Keep. Thanks for the significant reference that traces the origins of the school to 1600. It is notable for its historical roots as "the oldest eductional institution in Thoothukudi". Jzsj ( talk) 02:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I assume that you have reliable sources in the Tamil language to add to the article? The Banner  talk 20:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
These attempts to keeps schools without satisfying the notability guidelines is equally sad and hilarious. And you know quite well that schools are deleted due to lack of notability and not by mistake. The Banner  talk 08:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
What you were doing, The Gnome, was nothing more than singing the already shot down song of SCHOOLOUTCOMEs that schools are kept because school articles were kept in the past because school articles were kept in the past because school articles were kept in the past because school articles were kept in the past because school articles were kept in the past because school articles were kept in the past because school articles were kept in the past etc. Without any foundation in policies or guidelines. The Banner  talk 08:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Greetings. As it happens, I do not subscribe to the current practice of never deleting school articles and that should be obvious given my proposal over at the Notability talk page. The link's up in bold. I make similar sarcastic comments in most school article AfDs. It's just a let out. We merrily violate policy ("shot down"?! nope!) but one lone editor cannot do more than have some lame fun. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk) 16:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Well said.These AfDs are becoming typical drama-fests.Same faces on same sides, each aided by their own rhetoric. ∯WBG converse 03:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
And because I'm tired of the charade I react with humor (call it irony, 'sokay). See, for instance, one more example further below of the cyclical reasoning prevalent in school AfDs: "Keep. We generally keep such schools according to long standing precedent." In other words, keep that because we keep that. Penrose stairs! - The Gnome ( talk) 06:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Ha! :) I, (in my early days at School AfDs), had the misfortune to be indulged into trying some reasoning with the most vocal proponent(s) behind omni-keeping of schools but once one of them argued around the rough lines of Since we are keeping all football players, who have played just one match, we will be keeping schools, at an equivalent rate., I was in sufficient senses to pull myself out. ∯WBG converse 10:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Yep, I have heard the comment about a school without sources along this line: If you can not find sources, you did not search hard enough. Every trick in the book is used to avoid the question of notability. The Banner  talk 14:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is not evident, given that comments from editors post the previous re-list (with due respect to them) lack both policy and guideline basis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. One reads at WP:WHYN: "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with the Wikipedia: No original research requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources." Beyond that the burden of proof is on those challenging the reliability of a school's website, and the websites of other organizations. Is the matter falsely promotional, or is it factual so as not to mislead those who need to know about the school? There would be consequences for any school that is promoted through lies, and the burden of proof is on those who claim that the information given is not reliable. Jzsj ( talk) 09:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Cherry picking the luxe...
Do not forget the rest of WP:WHYN, Jzsj. Not every Jesuit-started organisation is automatically notable. The Banner  talk 16:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • No need for such cynical remarks. I have suggested that reviewers take more responsibility for accepting articles like those on social development organizations. I was misled for years by their accepting articles without even a tag; due to their acceptance of the articles I concluded that one independent source and more than regional reach were sufficient for notability. Jzsj ( talk) 16:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • That precedent is long gone, mr. Kudpung, and you know that quite well. But it is much easier to hammer on a by now historic precedent that actually adhere to the policies and guidelines. The Banner  talk 08:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
That precedent has not changed one iota, nor has your blatantly obvious serial campaign against school articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
So you still have no policy/guideline-based arguments to show? The Banner  talk 11:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Please drop it.None of you are going to convince the other and this back&forth will hardly make a difference to the outcome, whichever way that tilts. ∯WBG converse 13:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Avoiding the waste of time is always welcome but I believe demanding to know the policy behind another editor's suggestion is a legitimate query. Even if the question has been asked many times before and if all those times the answer was nowhere to be found. Otherwise, these AfDs truly serve no purpose. No harm in reminding ourselves of the existence of vacuum! - The Gnome ( talk) 08:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The sad thing is that somebody is already threatening me with blocks because I challenge his non-policy/guideline based views... The Banner  talk 09:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That is quite expected. You failed to get any "English" Language sources "online". When we should be looking for "Tamil" sources and "offline". I see here a clear disregard for a rather obvious language and regional WP:BIAS. Remember not every country in the world has a habit of putting everything online. Even then there are a few english sources that provide enough info to conclude that it is notable. results, facilities -- DBig Xray 11:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • We need significant mentions in RS.No body is doubting the existance of this school.As to offline sources, I've an access to repository of all prominent Indian newspapers, (1960-2012/13), courtesy my university library.As I said at JsJ's t/p a few days back, I did run a search expecting to get non-trivial hits but umm......, nothing much except routine (mentions of results), (bytes by it's successful students) along with others of different schools, (event-listings) and (a few stray incidents).(My quite-below-par knowledge of Tamil might have affected me but I won't buy that to a great extent).I didn't have any feasible method to conduct a search in other offline Tamil sources.If you really have a concrete source (rather than vague hand-wavings), or expect those to be found at possible vernacular newspapers, in some date-range, list them and I will be happy to run a narrowed search, in a few day's time. ∯WBG converse 13:32, 29 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 as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 20:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Howard Maurer

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

Subject works in entertainment industry and is the husband of actress Dyanne Thorne. Notability is not inheritage - WP:BIOFAMILY. Sources provided do not establish subject notability. A WP:BEFORE found no WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV of the subject. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENTERTAINER CASSIOPEIA( talk) 07:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 07:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 07:37, 28 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) 17:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Biju Chakkuvarakal

Biju Chakkuvarakal (  | 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 individual with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:BIO. GSS ( talk| c| em) 06:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 06:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 06:40, 28 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Marshmallow Coast

Marshmallow Coast (  | 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 appears not to have a single reliable source and I'm not at all sure it passes Wikipedia:BAND. KJP1 ( talk) 06:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:45, 28 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. Michig ( talk) 08:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Ciara Wilson

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

Up and coming actress. Was deleted by WP:PROD and restored by request at WP:REFUND. Original reason for deletion was "article was written by now banned editor with undeclared COI. More concerning though is that the article subject does not meet WP:NACTOR – at best, we have one possibly "significant role" on a sketch comedy TV series for a now defunct "mobile" TV channel. Other appearances are not "significant", and mostly consist of guest roles. At best, WP:TOOSOON." ~ Anachronist ( talk) 03:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:41, 28 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. ansh 666 20:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Mick Marlow

Mick Marlow (  | 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 seems to me that this articles only assertion of notability is WP:INHERITED from the athletes the subject coached. None of the sources listed even mention the subject. I have found no sources on Google News, Google Books, Newspapers.com, or The British Newspaper Archives (1950-1999). I have also focused a search on local sources in U.K. to no avail. The article was previously declined at Draft:Mick Marlow but was copy/pasted into the mainspace. This is only my second AfD nomination so please understand I have done my best effort at WP:BEFORE. ---  Coffeeand crumbs 03:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:36, 28 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 List of colleges affiliated to the University of Calicut#Sneha College of Architecture. ansh 666 20:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Sneha College of Architecture

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

As seems to be, this article must have been created for promotional purposes. Issues like no citation , no wikilink and being created by an inactive user with just 2 edits has strengthened my doubt. ARKA ( talk) 20:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete After the amendment. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and don't have a single secondary source. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus ( talk to me) 09:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Redirect I agree with Doncram though. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus ( talk to me) 12:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Pinging Jacknstock ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus ( talk to me) 09:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Education in Palakkad district There are two Sneha Colleges in Attayampathy, Palakkad that are part of this group: Sneha College of Teacher Education [91] and Sneha College of Architecture [92], but single-line government entry existence is about as far as the coverage goes in secondary sources that aren't COI sources. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 13:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. There is no way this should be deleted outright. Either:
A) it is substantially a part of University of Calicut and can be (or is already?) mentioned in that article, in which case "Redirect" could be an Alternative to deletion. There is mention at the University of Calicut article that it is an "affiliating"-type university which I don't understand. If it is a university similar to those in the U.S. with which I am more familiar, then note that we don't automatically create or accept articles on each component college or department, but we certainly can mention every component in the university article. Here, there is not yet any substantial development about the college, so there is no apparent need yet to split it out to a separate article.
B) it is substantially independent, in which case the fact that it is, I believe, a degree-granting secondary or above school is paramount in importance. See wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Or if you are in the camp against that and have the ridiculous-in-my-view opinion that a silly RFC which stated something like "Thou shalt not mention wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, then please consider: wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. For various good reasons including countering Wikipedia's Anglo-U.S. bias. -- Doncram ( talk) 05:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The fact we can't tell whether it is affiliated to a university or independent is part of the reason for deletion. There is nothing verifiable about it. All we have is a web site. There are no search results in either English or Malayalam, and I could not find an article in the other language WPs. With policy requiring WP:V and WP:NOR, there is simply nothing to say in an article and nothing to merge. A delete & redirect would also be OK, but that is substantially the same as delete because any editor could go back and create a redirect after deletion. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 19:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect or "Merge" [was "Keep", tentatively], though "Redirect" could also be appropriate depending on facts here (see comment just above). There has been no assertion of fraud or non-existence of this collegiate school that I am aware of, so all the good reasons for wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES apply.-- Doncram ( talk) 05:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
An affiliation with a university doesn't mean it's automatically notable. There are 480 affiliated colleges according to University_of_Calicut#Affiliated_colleges AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks, that link helps, and gets one further to List of colleges affiliated to the University of Calicut, a possible redirect target. Apparently they are all degree-granting with undergraduate or post-grad degrees, so technically in my view they all can be presumed to be Wikipedia-notable, if anyone cares to develop out substantial info justifying split out from briefer listing. But that doesn't mean we have to have separate articles about any of them now. Redirect/merge to the list-article seems best for now. -- Doncram ( talk) 19:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'm sorry, but this looks like a case of laziness. It took me five minutes to add two independent and reliable sources, one from the affiliating university and one from CoA, both showing that the institute exists, is recognized and awards secondary degrees (B. Arch). This is usually enough to keep an article about a degree-granting secondary school. I ask that previous !voters re-consider their stand with this new data. -- Muhandes ( talk) 14:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Those are just directory entries and not significant coverage of the school. If it were just a private vocational school without degrees, it wouldn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. But since it's a degree-granting school and not some certificates, it may get away with existence, but it's closer to a permastub. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 14:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure what notability this is being claimed to establish. See WP:NSCHOOL, which states that "For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria" of WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Even if you're relying on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, it states that independently accredited degree-awarding institutions are usually kept. This is not an independently accredited school, it is dependent on the affiliating university. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES also states that the current notability guidelines for schools and other education institutions are WP:N, WP:NGEO and WP:ORG. All you have shown is that it exists. This is a school that admits at most 40 students per year and has virtually no coverage, just the briefest of mentions in a couple of lists. It is a very long reach to state that this is a "keep." My usual concern with AfDs regarding schools on the Subcontinents is WP:BIAS, but no equivalent school in any country merits an encyclopedia article. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 02:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The term independently accredited may mean different things in different countries. To the best of my understanding, in India all higher education is controlled by the University Grants Commission (UGC). The UGC delegates the power of accreditation to the professional councils. The one for architecture is the Council of Architecture (CoA) which is sourced in the article. Therefore, strictly speaking, this college is independently accredited. Technical colleges can also choose to get additionally assessed and accredited by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), or by the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) in some cases, but I believe this is only mandatory for government funded colleges and is rarely done by small private colleges. Having bothered to say all that, I'm not sure how I got to this discussion and I promised myself to care less, so I will detach myself from this argument. Have fun. -- Muhandes ( talk) 17:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's no clear consensus between Keep and Redirect yet; and it's unclear whether List of colleges affiliated to the University of Calicut or Education in Palakkad district should be the redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:39, 28 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. ansh 666 20:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Johnny Castle (actor)

Johnny Castle (actor) (  | 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 "Unsung Swordsman", are not significant. Being featured in Men (magazine) is an insufficient claim of significance. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:16, 28 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Tee Reel

Tee Reel (  | 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. Lastly, the page links The Love Boat, but the role that the subject played is actually in the parody of The Love Boat. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:14, 28 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 Oval track racing. Sufficient consensus that the article should not be kept, at least as it stands source-wise. Amongst those !voting for redirect there seems consensus for this redirect target. Content remains in edit history to aid in any new article (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 16:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Short track motor racing

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

On top of a multitude of issues, including mostly being a directory in it's current form, it has absolutely no sources whatsoever. Violates WP:V and WP:NOR. The article Oval track racing already contains ample info on the subject in it's prose. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 18:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I would merge it into oval track racing. -- Mark McWire ( talk) 19:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The problem with that is the part of the article that isn't a list (which already exists at Oval track racing) is unreferenced original research. I'm honestly not sure how that lead has managed to survive since 2004 mostly intact. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 19:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The topic is so special, the article was probably never really read by anyone. I'm just a list freak, and so I removed the list duplicates to other articles some time ago. The topic itself does not interest me so much. -- Mark McWire ( talk) 20:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect into oval track racing. I see little content of value and especially the outdated directory of short tracks. No prejudice against anyone who would want to create a reliably sourced+cited article on this topic but it would need to start from scratch. A short track is a subset of oval track racing - the smallest of oval track (1 mile / 1.6km and shorter). Royal broil 00:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
comment. I pretty much agree. I had originally wanted to work on the article, but I quickly realized that WP:TNT is likely the best option. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 01:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
All of which that *isn't* WP:OR can be found at Oval track racing. No need to Fork the article. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 14:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 28 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 Senate election in Arkansas, 2008. I would delete, but content has been merged over to the election, so it's best to maintain attribution here. ansh 666 20:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Rebekah Kennedy

Rebekah Kennedy (  | 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 page should be deleted due to the subject of the biography having never held a political office in her life and having been out of politics for nearly a decade. The figure is not a national figure nor is she well known within Arkansas anymore. There is nothing notable about her, and given this, the WP:N would grant that this article should be deleted. Redditaddict69 ( talk) 04:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_July_28&oldid=1142616107"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 27 July 29 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Szzuk ( talk) 07:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Clifford Braimah

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

During discussions at this article's DYK nomination, as well as WT:DYK, some concerns were raised if Braimah was notable per our guidelines. A search reveals some coverage about him, mostly routine coverage such as news of his appointment, and statements by him. There also appears to be some coverage about an alleged plot to unseat him as head of Ghana Water. He also appears to have won an award, but it is unsure if the said award is notable in Ghana (the magazine that gave it, Humanity Magazine International, does not have an article). In the interest of the DYK nomination moving forward, as it has stalled, this AfD is to test for consensus on whether or not Braimah meets our notability guidelines, or if the coverage on him is significant enough. This nomination is procedural and I am neutral on his notability. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 23:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 23:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 23:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 23:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ SportingFlyer: The article states that he was appointed by a Minister, so he was technically government appointed. WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES are vague on the matter of if a position parallel to him is inherently notable: WP:POLOUTCOMES (an essay, but still) argues that only cabinet-level appointed officials are generally considered inherently notable, but the page also has this relevant quote: "Sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable, especially if they have had otherwise notable careers." So the main topic for discussion here is if the coverage on him is enough to establish notability (and I personally am slightly leaning towards a weak yes, though of course that's for this discussion to decide). Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 23:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I don't know why you pinged me, except that I inserted the above search template into the DYK nomination template after your comments. This could have been done on that template, and this AFD is over-kill. I don't live in that part of the world, and I don't have the knowledge to determine this. In the United States, where I live, appointed positions on any level of government are notable. Anything else is a civil service job where you have to fill out an application. Truly, I don't know why you opened this and just didn't keep it in one place at DYK. — Maile ( talk) 23:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I started an AfD at the suggestion of BlueMoonset, and a previous discussion of the subject on WT:DYK also suggested an AFD. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 23:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Please see WP:FORUMSHOP. You already had a response on the DYK template that this person is notable. Your response to that was to open this AFD. — Maile ( talk) 01:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Maile, if your intent at the DYK template was to say that the person was notable, it was not at all clear to me. I saw it as showing a tool for investigating a person's notability (or topic's), not as a statement that the tool would show that they were. DYK is a far from ideal place to determine notability, while AfD is the definitive one. Can you please tell me which response at the template said the person was notable, because I just don't see it, and since I'm the one who urged Narutolovehinata5 to bring this here so there could be a determination of notability, that would mean that I'm the forum shopper, and such was in no way my intent. (The DYK nominator seems to have washed their hands as regards to notability.) BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
It appears I wasn't seeing the updated version of the nomination page at the main DYK nominations page for some reason when I posted the above, so I didn't realize Mary Mark Ockerbloom had posted a comment about notability; the latest thing I saw was Crosstemplejay's month-and-a-half-old comment. My apologies. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP. Repeating my quoted material from the DYK: "Regarding notability: There are news articles from at least a dozen different sources quoted on the page, and in at least eight of those Clifford Braimah is specifically mentioned in the headline, either by name or as the Managing Director of the GWCL, or as the GWCL Boss. I think he'd pass a notability argument." Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 22:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC) To expand on my reasoning, that he's mentioned in the headline suggests to me that he is a major figure in the story; 12 sources could pass tests for multiple, secondary, and independent. I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough about Ghana to know which ones are reliable, but I think he's close to meeting the basic criteria. FURTHER, as noted above by SportingFlyer, I think he would pass via WP:NPOL as a politician holding national office -- he's a political appointee to the head of the national water supplier. South Africa is dealing with significant issues around water, cf. UNDESA: it's an important position. Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 03:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Request for close - It appears this AFD was opened as a result of miscues in good faith communications. Can an uninvolved editor please close this out? The conversation should resume on the DYK template where it started. — Maile ( talk) 10:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I closed this as nomination withdrawn, per a comment on my talk page this is not the case. Szzuk ( talk) 16:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
To clarify, this was not a proxy nomination on my behalf, and I had not "withdrawn" the nomination in my comment above, just apologized for not having been aware of the changed state at DYK. I have no opinion on the AfD's continuation here. BlueMoonset ( talk) 16:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Considering the discussion here and on the nomination page, I think it would be for the best to simply withdraw this AfD and let the DYK nomination run its course. The DYK nomination has been unfairly stalled for quite a while now and it's time for it to move forward. Szzuk, please do the honors. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 00:25, 30 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 08:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Bailey Stenson

Bailey Stenson (  | 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've thought about it for a while, and I think Stenson does not meet WP:NCOLLATH for several reasons.

  1. Even though she was part of a national championship team, she has not won a national award as an individual student-athlete, only two honorable mention all- Pac-10 Conference honors. Thus, she fails NCOLLATH criterion 1.
  2. Regarding criterion 3 about "national media attention as an individual", she has been featured in ESPN and The Oklahoman for surviving leukemia - but that is practically the extent of her "national media attention" from her college career. Surviving leukemia is not in itself sufficient for WP:GNG. Arbor to SJ ( talk) 21:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 23:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:16, 29 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 08:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

2018 Oceania Wrestling Championships

2018 Oceania Wrestling Championships (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Boilerplate article about this year's individual running of a sporting event. There's no evidence being shown here that the event is notable at all -- there isn't even a basic overview article about the Oceania Wrestling Championships at all, and the only source being cited here is the event's own self-published website about itself rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about it in media. And apart from a single sentence stating that the event "will" happen (except that the date on which it will happen is now two months into the past), the only other content here is still-blank medal tables. I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can show some evidence that this event is actually notable enough for an article, but there's literally no value in holding onto it in this form if nobody's actually updating it with properly sourced results at all. Bearcat ( talk) 21:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No information that the overarching event is notable, let alone this years. If it were a notable concept, I'd consider userfying per WP:CRYSTALBALL, but it isn't. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - There is an article stating that the event did exist. Is this worthy of being an article on its own as its hasn't been worked on it. To be honest I don't know on that front so I am going to stay neutral in this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Waralee Saensong

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

Subject not shown to meet the notability guidelines. This has been repeatedly userfied, and disputed by the creator, resulting in a minor move war. I'm thus bringing it to AfD in order to settle the matter at a proper discussion venue. Paul_012 ( talk) 21:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: She was certainly in the squad, but did not play a game. I expect her to reach the notability threshhold some time in the next few years, but she isn't there yet. St Anselm ( talk) 00:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Do Not Delete Request: I see that there are similar pages too. For eg, Annemijn Thomson has a page without playing any First Class/List-A/Twenty20 match. She was also a part of international squad but did not get a chance t play any international match. I want somebody to guide me by providing logical rationale on why one page is allowed to stay, whereas the other one is being nominated for deletion. Regards, Vikram Maingi ( talk) 04:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and StAnselm. For Thomson, she played in the 2015 T20 Qualifier, which meets the last point of #2 of WP:NCRIC. The article creator has shown time and time again that they don't understand WP:NCRIC, creating multiple n/n article, despite being told on their talkpage not to do so. I think the next logical step, if this continues, would be a topic-ban. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I do not want to increase/waste the time and effort of all and sundries. All I requested for was for the rationale for allowing page-creation of Annemijn Thomson, when this person too hasn't played any matches. I assure the Wikipedia team that I will adhere to the notability criteria. Good that Lugnuts commented on this. I have asked this question directly on his talk page as well. Regards, Vikram Maingi ( talk) 09:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Without dragging this out, you DO increase/waste the time and effort of all and sundries with your article creations. Either they don't meet the notabiltiy requirements, or they are of an incredibly poor quality, that need the time and effort of other editors to clean up to a minimum quality you'd expect of a new article. I strongly suggest you take this advice and avoid content creation of living people and focus on other areas of work. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Sorry for the argument: I still don't understand why the page Annemijn Thomson should stay why Waralee Saensong should be deleted. Both the pages are of ditto quality. Both the persons haven't played any international match. Thanks, Vikram Maingi ( talk) 12:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I've already explained why in this AfD. Just more proof that you simply don't understand what you are doing. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Point accepted Lugnuts. Team may delete this page or else move it to my User space. And trust me, I want to learn from your good things and improve the pages.Thanks, Vikram Maingi ( talk) 13:51, 29 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 Mercedes Lackey bibliography#The Dragon Jousters. This did not need an AfD. Sandstein 08:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The Dragon Jousters series

The Dragon Jousters series (  | 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 since 2009. Article creator inactive since 2013. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing WP:RS either for the series or for any of the novels in the tetralogy, and I smell WP:OR. I propose not delete but blank and redirect (keeping the categories) to Mercedes Lackey bibliography#The Dragon Jousters as {{ R to section}}. Narky Blert ( talk) 20:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following pages relating to members of the tetralogy, with the same recommendation, for the reasons given above:

Joust (novel) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alta (novel) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Signed) Narky Blert ( talk) 21:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Agree with assessment and redirects for the reasons stated above. Auldhouse ( talk) 13:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 20:55, 28 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 nomination withdrawn -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 12:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

RCS La Chapelle

RCS La Chapelle (  | 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(also on frwiki) football club which fails WP:NCLUB. withdrawn » Shadowowl | talk 20:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 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. AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Waffenamt codes

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

Nazi fancruft marked as unsourced since 2013. Fails WP:IINFO, WP:V and WP:N. Merging to Waffenamt is inadvisable because the content is unsourced and of no discernible significance. Sandstein 19:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 12:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

World Aid Organization

World Aid Organization (  | 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 non profit organication. Googled both "World Aid Organization" and "Healthnovations International". Bbarmadillo ( talk) 19:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:23, 28 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 Somwarpet. Sandstein 08:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Sandeepany English Medium School

Sandeepany English Medium 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)

Orphan, per WP:DEL#8 and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Name of this school is an issue, having come across multiple different names, such as Sandipany English Medium school and Sandeepani High School in different locations. After checking an archive of the only given citation in history, http://eproc.hpcl.co.in/Product/ReportAction?eventFlag=RegVendorPublic (archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20130103013850/http://eproc.hpcl.co.in/Product/ReportAction?eventFlag=RegVendorPublic), there is no mention of this school under this name. This citation only provides a list of enrolled vendors - a company short name, company name and address. Steven (Editor) ( talk) 18:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Somwarpet. I'm seeing multiple Sandeepany/Sandeepani/Sandi Pini schools that offer secondary education, and it is not clear which ones this one refers to. There's one called Sandeepani High School that occasionally has some outstanding student scoring on exams. [1] [2] and one for Sandeepani International School: [3] [4] Also Sandi Pini [5] With the school being private, it is even more confusing to verify. I did find this Datanet document that discusses a Sandeepany English Medium School [6] but again that's a passing mention. A more specific address would be helpful. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:58, 30 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 08:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Phyllis Brown

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable musician. Quis separabit? 18:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:56, 28 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 both consensus and author request. No point in keeping open longer. ansh 666 18:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Shiksha Matabadul

Shiksha Matabadul (  | 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:NMODEL.Only notable for one event. Created by a person who appeared to be affiliated with this pagents. Anyway no evidence of notability, Fails WP:GNG. Akhiljaxxn ( talk) 18:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete: fails WP:NMODEL & WP:GNG; concur with @Akhiljaxxn. Quis separabit? 18:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:59, 28 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. Guy ( Help!) 23:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Ibrahim ibrahim

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

Author of a number of fringe self-published books. [7], no discussion of him anywhere I can find. True he's used in another fringe book as a source [8] Books are either Kindle, Calendar Publications which is obviously his, or "MagnetElectro Publications" - MagnetElectro is the username of the editor who created the article. No evidence of notability WP:GNG or WP:PERSON. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I guess I should link his website. [9] Doug Weller talk 18:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
It appears to be an early use of metres. Certes ( talk) 20:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks, Certes, good catch. It sure is an early use. Maybe the ancient Egyptians were able to foresee the metre would be introduced round about the French Revolution. Bishonen | talk 21:02, 28 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 08:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Shadow Slasher

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

According to Marvel Wikia this character only appears three times; does not meet WP:GNG. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 17:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:59, 29 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 08:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Shatterstar (Kree)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. A Google search pulls up mostly results for the other Shatterstar character. In addition, the page is only linked to by seven articles, and the character appears a mere 12 times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 17:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:59, 29 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 08:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Vincente Cimetta

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

Character does not meet WP:GNG. Different versions of Cimetta listed on Marvel Wikia only appear ten times altogether. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 17:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 22:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:56, 29 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 09:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Phillip Ozdemir

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

Was deprodded without rationale or improvement. While accomplished, searches do not turn up enough indepth sourcing from independent reliable references to show they meet WP notability criteria as per WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 17:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NOTRESUME. This is a horrific mess. Pardon the analogy, but it needs to be nuked. The subject might be notable for one book that got reviews, but the rest is so much mindless trivia and egotistical naval-gazing that the article needs to be started from scratch. Bearian ( talk) 16:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America 1000 15:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

My Companions in the Bleak House

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 17:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 17:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Sedmikostelí

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 17:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 17:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Andrew Davidson and Vejvančický. James500 ( talk) 22:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect pending someone introducing some accurate, verifiable information that isn't already included in Miloš Urban. Having a one-sentence article that only duplicates a fraction of the relevant information in the main article is unhelpful. No comment on notability or potential to become more than a useless non-article. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I have expanded this article from the source provided by Andrew Davidson. To be honest I would have no problems with the article being merged into Miloš Urban for the time being, as they are both short articles. Urban is a pretty significant author in CR though, and there is no doubt a proper article could be written about him; I will try to get round to it at some point. At any rate, deletion nominations for books such as this by authors such as this without due process are fairly cynical, and I daresay there are better ways to approach it. Jdcooper ( talk) 22:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America 1000 01:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Rana jesen

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 18:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 18:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:47, 28 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. North America 1000 01:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The Eleventh Commandment (1970 film)

The Eleventh Commandment (1970 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 18:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 18:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:46, 28 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) Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Doći i ostati

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 18:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 18:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Love and Some Swear Words

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - a Google search for this article does not throw up many results that are actually about the film. The article itself is very brief, and does not supply much information other than this is a Croatian film. Vorbee ( talk) 17:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 18:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 18:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete – Unless the article has some significant addition to it, there is no reason at all to keep a one- or two-sentence article. Less than a stub, doesn't receive many page views. Redditaddict69 ( talk) 14:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Wölf. Nationally released film by Croatia Film and was reviewed by the English language and American Daily Variety [21] demonstrates passing WP:NFILM not to mention directed by very notable director with just as notable actors. Being a stub is not a proper reason to delete. Stubs of notable topics are always better than no articles. -- Oakshade ( talk) 04:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This is a close call, and in other circumstances I would have closed it as no consensus. However, we also have to consider WP:FRINGE, which directs us to require stronger sourcing on topics that deviate from the scholarly mainstream. Specifically, if an idea is widespread but questionable, we need out-of-bubble, critical sources to conform with WP:NPOV. With that in mind, I have weighted the argument that there is a lack of in-depth scholarly coverage over that of notability because it appears in a variety of less reliable sources. –  Joe ( talk) 16:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Heretic's fork

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

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

  • Very uncomfortable keep, or perhaps a merge/redirect to a list. No weight should be given to Reston's 1994 usage as it is fictionalised history. This is evidence for 1983 -- also as "forcella dell'eretico"", which predates Golub's 1985 work, but there seems to be no evidence online for anything earlier. "La horquilla del hereje" is a 1990 work by Roberto Márquez (painter) -- no prior use of that term found. Given it's use as an inspiration and other coverage, there's enough for some kind of retention (perhaps with careful selection of tone and attribution). Are there any RS casting which cast doubt on its actual existence/use, and that can be quoted? ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 07:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 07:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- The material listed by other contributors to this debate needs to be compiled into the article. Even if the 1983 and 1985 items were the equivalent of a HOAX, this seems to have taken on a life of its own. The article needs to be amended to imply that the subject is at best of dubious historicity. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Presumably AllyD and H3O + OH- haven't found any better sources than the ones they gave (if they had, why would they omit them?), and I'm not finding any evidence of reliability-and-usefulness for any of those sources. "this is evidence for 1983" is [23], which is a catalogue of the holdings of a museum: without plenty of details, we can't assume that the authors refer to the concept discussed in this article. The Beard Book publication was already debunked as untrustworthy. The other book is published by Edizioni Savine. I've logged into ProQuest Oasis ( documentation) and searched for the publisher, and I can't find a single Edizioni Savine book in their offerings (even a publisher search for savine found nothing relevant). Oasis lists millions of new and old titles in print and e, and this publisher's complete absence from their listings (even print, which the First-sale doctrine allows ProQuest to sell without publisher permission) makes me guess that ProQuest does not believe that ES titles will be of interest to academic libraries. I'd need a good deal of convincing before I believed that such a publisher could be considered reliable. EUP journals are reliable, but we need a reliable source that connects the heretic's fork and the pié de amigo before we use an EUP journal talking only about the latter. PS, I've just checked Edizioni Savine in YBP Gobi ( documentation), which I generally prefer over Oasis because of its search interface and (often) more comprehensive results, and it too returned 0 results. PPS, the Golub artwork is not a reliable source for the actual existence of such a torture device; it could have been his imagination. The photo is legitimate, but the hosting museum doesn't exist anymore; museums can be operated by individuals or small groups (see the final paragraph of David Yeiser House, for example), so without evidence that this was a solid professional museum, I'm highly reluctant to trust it. Nyttend ( talk) 03:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - On the fence on this one. There looks to be several mentions of this in many publications over the years, but I've yet to find a single in-depth source. It's mentioned at List of methods of torture, but not such that it would make sense to merge as that list stands. Maybe good to turn that list into something a little more substantial that can support this sort of edge case... --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete: As I said in my earlier comments, enough pre-Wikipedia usage can be found to challenge any idea of this having been placed as a WP:HOAX article. However, my searches in various places have failed to locate solid sources to provide positive support for an article about a C16-17 inquisitor’s object – and even when I was confident of finding such, I was still expecting to finish by recommending merger into a list of instruments, much as Rhododendrites suggests. Alternatively, following the suggestion by Hydronium Hydroxide and Peterkingiron, the article might cover the topic as a cultural idea, such as in the Golub artwork, but would I think need to avoid original research by citing a source which had already investigated the topic in those terms. All in all, I wouldn’t be uncomfortable with a "no consensus" outcome, but can’t make a strong positive argument for retention. AllyD ( talk) 18:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

AIR Faizabad

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

Article pertains to the city-level affiliate of a wider radio channel, acting primarily as a translator station, and as such would lack notability according to WP:BROADCAST. A quick Google search does not point to notability on its own.   Shobhit102 | talk  03:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   Shobhit102 | talk  08:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   Shobhit102 | talk  08:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and/or redirect. Broadcasting does not work in all countries the same way it works in Canada or the United States — in the vast majority of countries, radio and television networks do not have any such thing as local "affiliates" that originate any local programming separately from the parent network, but rather they operate exclusively as a single national service with a bunch of rebroadcasters that have no local programming variations. North American broadcasting is the exception, not the rule, to how broadcast networks operate in most countries. So the notability test is not passed just by saying the word "affiliate" — it's passed by showing reliable source evidence that the station actually originates some local programming. But there's no evidence of that being shown here at all. I'm not an expert in how to figure that out when it comes to India, but that's precisely why the claim has to be sourced, and not just asserted as possible, before it actually becomes valid grounds for an article about a radio transmitter — we've had lots of articles attempted about radio "stations" that don't meet that criteria, but actually exist solely as rebroadcasters of other services or networks, so proof that a radio station actually passes that condition has to be shown and not just presumed. NMEDIA most certainly does not exempt a media outlet from having to be properly referenced to be considered notable. Bearcat ( talk) 18:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Nongcun Guangbo

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

No source that can prove notability of this radio station B dash ( talk) 02:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 14:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 14:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. We do not routinely keep every article that merely claims that its topic exists as a radio station, but rather radio stations have to meet all four of four conditions to get articles: (1) they originate at least a portion of their own programming schedule in their own studios rather than existing purely as a rebroadcaster of another service, (2) they are licensed by the relevant regulatory authority rather than operating as a Part 15 or pirate station, (3) they are actually on the air and not just an unlaunched construction permit that exists only on paper, and (4) all three of those facts are reliably sourceable. We've had a lot of hoax articles created over the years about radio stations that didn't really exist, or that falsely claimed a license they didn't have or programming they didn't produce — so the notability test for a radio station is not just "the article says it exists", but "the article can be properly sourced as meeting all of the conditions for the notability of a radio station". And this is not properly sourced as meeting any of them. NMEDIA most certainly does not exempt a media outlet from having to be properly referenced to be considered notable. Bearcat ( talk) 18:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I gave links above that show that the station satisfy the conditions you mentioned, perhaps you should check those first? Hzh ( talk) 09:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Those aren't reliable sources. They all represent the self-published content of the station and the company that owns it, and none of them represent independent coverage about it in sources independent of it. Bearcat ( talk) 16:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
There are so many sources that mention various aspects of the station - e.g. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] I'm not sure what there is to question about the station. Hzh ( talk) 21:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Every web page that exists with a radio station's name in it is not automatically a reliable or notability-supporting source. Almost every single one of those links is some form of primary sourcing, such as blogs, press releases from the company itself and/or organizations that it's directly affiliated with, or social networking platforms — which are types of sources that do not count as support for notability. Exactly zero of them represent the kind of reliable sourcing that is valid support for notability. Literally the only one that looks like it might be a real reliable source completely fails to mention this station at all — it's just very general coverage of a company which I'm presuming owns this station if you're adding it here, but neither it nor this article actually says that company owns this station at all. You're not showing the kind of solid sources that it takes to make a radio station notable — you're showing the kind of weak sources, mostly its own self-created content about itself, that don't make a radio station notable. Bearcat ( talk) 21:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Blanket dismissal of such diverse sources is pointless because it is not clear on what basis you are dismissing them. The first one for example looks at the station in quite a bit of detail, and I haven't a clue as to why you dismiss it. Cumulatively they do suggest that the station is significant. Hzh ( talk) 21:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I dismiss the first source because it's not a reliable source media outlet; it's a press release distribution and advertising platform on which companies can and do freely redistribute their own self-written information about themselves. Unreliable and self-created sources cannot add up to "cumulative notability"; only reliable sources can do that. Bearcat ( talk) 22:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
And you offered no evidence that it's press release, nor for any of the others. Hzh ( talk) 23:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
And here's more [40] [41] [42] [43] Hzh ( talk) 23:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
A person can plainly verify that it's a press release, and not real journalism in a real media outlet, just by (a) looking at it, and (b) reading our article about the website it's on. I don't need to "prove" anything that's already self-evident. And these four new sources — three glancing namechecks of its existence in books that aren't about it and one academic dissertation about the general phenomenon of rural broadcasting in which this radio station's name fails to appear at all — are not notability boosters either. You're failing to understand the very real distinction between a source that is reliable and notability-building, and a source which is not — "reliable sourcing" is not the same thing as "any web page that exists at all". Bearcat ( talk) 17:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:42, 28 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 09:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Jude the Entropic Man

Jude the Entropic Man (  | 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 comics character. No in-depth coverage and only minor in-universe appearances. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 02:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 03:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 03:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 03:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 03:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:42, 28 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: J. Opinion is split between merge and delete, but with a consensus not to keep. So either somebody does the merger, or if this doesn't happen or the content doesn't stick, anybody can RfD the redirect. Sandstein 09:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Jagged Bow

Jagged Bow (  | 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 comics character with only three or four appearances over 25+ years. Could merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: J but am leaning towards deletion. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 01:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 03:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 03:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 03:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 03:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure your "location for non-independently notable characters" holds up - the majority of characters on the list are independently notable. That aside (since it is only tangentially relevant), while you're right in the sense no content will be lost (if properly included), so a merge isn't necessary, its presence in other articles doesn't seem to waive the benefit and argument for merging it with the list, which acts as an excellent co-ordinating location for characters both elsewhere and not. Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
How far did you scroll down the list before coming to the conclusion that most are independently notable? I'd say at least a quarter of the entries on these lists are the results of merges over the last 5 years precisely because they're not notable outside the fiction. This is better suited for the Marvel Wikia. Argento Surfer ( talk) 13:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I used 4 spot check pages, usually viewed as a good amount on an alphabetical list. Obviously the odds could be against me in this specific case Nosebagbear ( talk) 13:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The upper entries on the J list are more notable than the average. Argento Surfer ( talk) 15:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: if the character is not covered in any or very few third-party, reliable sources, then I am not sure about the value of a merge as all of the information that would be added to the list would be in-universe. I agree with Argento Surfer, though I am open to changing my vote if someone provides links to third-party, reliable sources. I tried looking, but I could not find anything. I could be missing the obvious though as my Google game is not that great right (just having Wikipedia fatigue at the moment). Aoba47 ( talk) 04:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ SkyGazer 512: What value does the content have? The character appears five times across Marvel continuity and has a minimal number of incoming links. As others have noted, the lists are not intended to be exhaustive and nothing of importance would be lost by deleting this article. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 20:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Tbh, my reasoning is pretty much as simple as what BOZ said. The subject is not notable enough to have its own article, but we have an article right here containing a list of these characters. So instead of deleting the content completely, it makes perfect sense for the information in this article to be merged into the list of characters. Also, I'm not finding many of the arguments as to why we should remove the content completely convincing - I'm still not seeing what the problem would be if we merge the content, rather than have it outright deleted.-- SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 23:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm sure Argento Surfer will be able to put it more eloquently than I will, but from my end I'm in favor of deleting extremely minor characters like this one because of WP:IINFO and WP:MILL. The lists of characters aren't supposed to be wholly exhaustive (that's what fanwikis are for), and not every comic character needs inclusion on a list. There seems to be a recent push towards deletionism from within WP:COMICS and honestly, I'm fine with that. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 23:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply
One thing I will say, is that I don't think all the information that's currently listed on the page necessarily needs to be merged. It might be best to summarize it into a short paragraph and just add that to the List of Marvel Comics characters: J page.-- SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 23:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Indeed, that's the reason I have made the same argument on several other AFDs all currently going on; there is room enough for at least a handful of sentences for these characters, so we do not need to remove all information about them. BOZ ( talk) 00:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ansh 666 20:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Post-close addendum: there was a comment added between the time that I opened the AfD page and closing that I didn't see. While the NC close stands, I'd say it leans closer to consensus that GNG is met, though not all the way there. ansh 666 20:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Gary Trauner

Gary Trauner (  | 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:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of tiself, and the expected level of campaign coverage is not an automatic WP:GNG exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL: campaign coverage always exists for all candidates, so a candidate only clears the bar if the sourcing demonstrates him as a special case over and above most other candidates. But that's not what the sourcing does here, and he has no credible claim of preexisting notability for other reasons. Bearcat ( talk) 14:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep There's quite a few references here, this isn't this guy's first political rodeo, seems to be enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Active candidates and local politicians are not inherently notable, but such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" per WP:POLITICIAN. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 16:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Firstly, it doesn't matter if it's his first rodeo or his tenth — it matters whether he won a rodeo or not. Every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign-related coverage — if all a candidate had to show to be deemed notable was that some campaign coverage existed, there would never be any such thing as a non-notable candidate. To be deemed as passing GNG in lieu of failing NPOL, a candidate does not just have to show a handful of campaign coverage — he has to be able to show that his campaign coverage exploded so far beyond what every other candidate could also show that he's got a credible claim to being a special case. Bearcat ( talk) 18:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
We'll see what the rest of the community says; there's a reason why I voted "weak." PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 02:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Perennial candidates can be notable, even though by definition they do not win. I haven't yet made up my mind about this candidate. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
It would take a lot more than just WP:ROUTINE local coverage to make a perennial candidate notable. Lyndon LaRouche, sure. John Turmel, yeah. But not every single person who can simply claim to be a perennial candidate. Bearcat ( talk) 20:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't see any independent notability other than his candidacy from the references in the article. SportingFlyer talk 21:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is always coverage of a candidate for public office. That alone is not a sign of notability. We have deliberately decided that every candidate for the US congress is not notable. Nothing short of every candidate for US congress being notable would make Trauner notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Gary Trauner is well known in Wyoming and national political circles, and nearly won election to the U.S. House by less than a percentage point in what was nearly a major D upset, even in 2006. He's still a prominent figure in the DC state and Wyoming politics. Scanlan ( talk) 00:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The number of votes a person got in the process of not winning the election is not a notability claim in and of itself. Either he wins the election or the election is irrelevant to his notability or lack thereof. And just asserting that somebody is well known in national politics isn't a freebie that exempts you from having to show and source the fact as true — but none of the sourcing or substance here demonstrates that at all. Bearcat ( talk) 18:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Being a perennial candidate is not an automatic notability freebie either, in the absence of much more than just local attention. Bearcat ( talk) 20:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He has met GNG through independent media coverage, and this article has 26 citations. There is enough info for this to be considered a full article, and not a stub. Narayansg ( talk) 00:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
You might need to recount those citations with an eye to the fact that some of them are primary sources that can't assist notability, and virtually all of the rest are the WP:ROUTINE local coverage that every candidate in every election could always show. Nothing in the range or volume of sourcing makes him special at all — every candidate everywhere could always show every bit as much sourcing as this. Bearcat ( talk) 02:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The difficulty with perennial candidates (or near perennial candidates) is that there is not a great place to redirect the article to. Our usual outcome for members running for Congress is a redirect to the appropriate election page - in this case, there are three possible redirect targets. -- Enos733 ( talk) 05:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus so far, is redirecting a good solution?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 16:31, 28 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. Consensus that sourcing is inadequate, plus WP:CRYSTAL concerns. ansh 666 20:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

KC International Airlines

KC International Airlines (  | 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. The only sources look like press releases. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

It does not matter if it has a real Aircraft, what matters is coverage. And it has none. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
So A lot of trivial mentions, some demonstrating just why crystal is so important (a launch date of March, or was it January). So they have put back their launch date at least twice now. When they actually start flying the article could be recreated, at this time there is no guarantee of what their routs will even be. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Nominator assumed that he sources cited are press releases. What he failed to realize is that none of the sources cited are press releases. CAPA is an independent organization and so is plane spotters. This is a lazy nomination and the nominator deserves a trout since his CSD was based on assumption that article was previously deleted and then he assumed that sources are press releases. Nominator should refrain from nominating articles from AfD. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
What I meant was that they are not in depth coverage, they are the kind of materiel that companies write about themselves and give out. Almost all of the mentions are trivial (with the other one disusing the arrival of their first aircraft), and little more then "We exist" (you will note I did not say they were press releases, I said they look like them). So a few trivial mentions (amounting to they exist) and a newspaper report about them reciving one aircraft (in my opinion) notability does not make. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Planespotters is not considered reliable.-- Jetstreamer  Talk 16:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
And from one of the sources "KC International Airlines once again filed service revision for its planned inaugural", then yes Crystalballing is an issue here. Hell they cannot even say when in August they intend to start flying. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment commercial airlines are not "always notable"; as has been determined many times in other AfD discussions, airlines must satisfy WP:CORP just like any other companies. Having said that, I am reserving judgement at this time. YSSYguy ( talk) 07:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 16:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
None that I could find. The only news I found is the airline receiving their first plane. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
And no others, it is really logical to say an airline with one plane is going to be able to run a scheduled service? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
But it's a very shiny plane 😉
https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/67618-cambodias-kc-intl-airlines-secures-52mn-in-funding -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Also I did find this: https://www.pilotcareercentre.com/Air-Carrier-PCC-Profile/4071/KC-International-Airlines -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
So it is not even (At this time) licensed to operate aircraft. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The article says "The company is presently undergoing AOC Certification with an intended revenue services starting in early 2018 with planning for up to 25 aircraft in the next five years." And it's already mid 2018. Though it was last updated June 20, 2018. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
You would have thought if they had been accredited they would have said so, so the latest information is they are still not certificated to operate as a commercial airline. Thus this must fail Crystal ball. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Just curious how could they have bought a plane without licensing? -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The same way that Jeremy Clarkson did, I am not sure you need one to own a plane, just to operate it for commercial purposes. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 08:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The above raises more questions then answers, does it have an official website or Facebook page? How many staff does it have? An airline about to lunch in a day or so, and not one live update as to status or seat availability? Is it even still going? Slatersteven ( talk) 09:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
https://www.facebook.com/KCAIRLINES/ seem their Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/KCAIRLINES/photos/a.726576217537052.1073741829.683705931824081/841613212700018/?type=3
https://www.facebook.com/KCAIRLINES/photos/a.726576217537052.1073741829.683705931824081/849890125205660/?type=3 -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
And nothing since the middle (being generous) of July.
Ohh and http://kcairlines.com, ohh dear just how much more do we need to say "this is not even up and running yet". Slatersteven ( talk) 09:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Odd as their website is still not operational, or do they have another? Slatersteven ( talk) 09:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doesn't seem mergeable. ansh 666 20:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

North Carolina dromaeosaurid

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

Unnamed, only roughly classified, singular fragmentary fossil (a single tooth) that does not merit an article. (Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington theropod - exactly the same issue.) -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 09:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 09:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 13:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
How so? It's certainly a solidification of verifiability, but just being the subject of a scientific palaeontology paper doesn't establish notability. Just looking at this month I would imagine this would mean that these perinatal hadrosaurs [46], this large pterosaur [47], and these large theropod tracks [48] should all also have stub articles. None of them are Cretaceous Research of course, but they're all published papers, which seems to be what you're going off of. Lusotitan ( Talk | Contributions) 21:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
No it isn't. Primary scientific research reports of fossils are WP:MILL. Somebody else in the field (or the media) needs to care. For that matter, it hasn't even been formally published in Cretaceous Research yet - the citation is to a pre-publication release to subscribers. Agricolae ( talk) 21:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. By the logic of the creator any single fragment of a fossil that has any sort of unique fact about it should get an article with a single sentence (see the examples in my reply above). That's unsustainable and doesn't help anybody. This one doesn't even have the argument of an awkward merge like the Washington State theropod does, it's a very simple incorporation into the Dromaeosauridae article just like the deleted Australia spinosaur article. Lusotitan ( Talk | Contributions) 21:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - at a minimum this is WP:TOOSOON. The paper reporting it hasn't even been formally published yet. A sizable number of scientific papers either are completely ignored by their field, or are deemed to be flawed and are never accepted. Initial publication of a finding is no indication that it is authentic and noteworthy. A good rule of thumb for scientific findings is that a research paper needs to be formally published, then it has to be accepted as noteworthy and likely accurate (or at least possible) by the rest of the field, as evinced by summary and citation in reviews or the introductions of later papers written by a researcher independent of the author to indicate a finding is notable. Agricolae ( talk) 21:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - until this fossil is assigned a name, or, at the very least, until the paper that found the tooth is released, this article should not be on Wikipedia. While there is information that could render this more than a stub (ie the fact that it fills a gap in the taxonomy of Dromaeosauridae), the paper hasn't actually been published yet. Until it is (or, preferably, until the specimen is actually assigned a name), then the findings aren't exactly very reliable. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう 私の編集 21:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
By the way, after the paper is actually published, I'm also fine with adding it to the Dromaeosauridae article, since it can add useful information to its taxonomy. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう 私の編集 23:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow consideration of the late "merge" suggestion to Dromaeosauridae.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 16:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As of now, neither source for the article hasbeen formally published, so neither is a WP:RS. That makes none of it WP:V, so there is thus nothing to merge. This will change when the article is formally published, but what, if anything, to mention on the dromaeosaur page can be discussed at that time through the normal editing process. Agricolae ( talk) 16:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with dromaeosauridae. It seems unlikely that some would want specific details on the North Carolina version of this dinosaur. Vorbee ( talk) 16:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I have to agree. There's nothing to merge as of now, and this isn't a likely redirect term either. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 19:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Jumping on this as well. It's not even well written, we'd have to re-do the whole coverage of the subject anyways. When it's validly published it can be put on the page Appalachia (Mesozoic), written from scratch. Lusotitan ( Talk | Contributions) 20:15, 30 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. ansh 666 20:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Behrooz Astaneh

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

Does not meet Wikipedia notability criteria for biographies of living persons Rahiminejad ( talk) 08:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Eastmain: that's editor-in-chief, not editor. And the Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences seems to be a far cry from a notable journal, it's not even in MEDLINE. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 07:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per above Weak keep, per Randykitty. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 07:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. The Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences is indeed not a major journal, but I just went through the article and it does meet NJounrals because of its inclusion in Scopus. The latter database also gives a "CiteScore", roughly equivalent fo an impact factor, of almost 1, which is not bad for a general medical journal published in a non-Western country. According to their website, Astaneh is one of 2 chief editors, which would appear to satisfy NACADEMIC#8. I make this a "weak" keep, as there is not much more to be found on this person. -- Randykitty ( talk) 13:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • PS The fact that this journal is not in MEDLINE, noted by Headbomb above, is perhaps related to the US sanctions against Iran, as I remember reading that some Iranian authors could not publish in US-based journals because of them. The journal is in PMC, but may have gotten in there when the sanctions were lifted, as PMC works a bit faster, I think, than MEDLINE. This is just speculations, of course, as I have no sources for this. -- Randykitty ( talk) 13:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 16:16, 28 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 and redirect to List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom. I find the argument that this is a populated place and therefore meets GEOLAND to be particularly twisted. And regardless of ROADOUTCOMES, in the end an article needs to meet GNG and there is consensus that this one doesn't. Randykitty ( talk) 10:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Doncaster North services

Doncaster North 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)

No evidence of notability, and I'm not sure that service stations are notable enough to have articles. If it is important it could be mentioned in the article about the motorways it is next to. If this article is deleted then some of the articles for the other service stations in the UK should be PRODed. Jc86035 ( talk) 12:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment In the one US case where there are links at all to rest areas, they all point to one section of the New Jersey Turnpike article which lists them. I think that's only because they have names. Honestly I'm having a hard time seeing the notability of rest areas but I'm sure I'm about to be instructed otherwise. Mangoe ( talk) 14:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Going to have to go with delete as none of the arguments I'm seeing in favor of keeping are better than "is too!" Mangoe ( talk) 22:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ Jeni: I don't usually edit in this topic area or at AfD, but do you have sources which relate to this particular service station? Jc86035 ( talk) 14:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Rest stops in the US range from mere parking areas (though generally with some sort of rest rooms) to the complexes found along I-95 and the NJ Turnpike. The latter match the description of the British facilities, but while one can perhaps find some routine news briefs about them, they are, when all is said and done, just rest areas, and the description of these says the same. Mangoe ( talk) 17:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • These service areas are not much different than small shopping centres, which we already have a whole deletion sorting category for. Most shopping centres in the UK have their own postcodes, that doesn't make them notable however. Furthermore, majority of these services articles contain little more than travel guide content, including websites to hotels and other businesses in the area. Ajf773 ( talk) 18:35, 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
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ Necrothesp: We can't draw conclusions from those AFDs, which were flawed to begin with. The nominators wanted to delete all of the articles at once, even though some of the service stations are clearly notable, so it's not really surprising that they were both closed with a consensus to keep all the articles. That has nothing to do with whether this particular article passes the GNG. Jc86035 ( talk) 16:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
That's simply not true. The argument is that all British motorway service stations are notable. Good reasons have been given on those AfDs and those reasons have not changed. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
It's difficult to rely on flawed AfDs from almost a decade ago, as notability guidelines have changed. Also, the discussion wasn't extensive - it hasn't really been addressed from ten years ago, when notability guidelines were a bit different. The ROADOUTCOMES blurb was added by someone who contributed to one of those AfDs, and it's completely unclear to me why a UK service station would be presumptively notable, but a Croatia service station wouldn't be - especially where the UK service station fails WP:GNG like this one does. SportingFlyer talk 05:40, 20 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
  • Delete The reason Jeni's argument about "all UK services stations are notable" usually works is because traditionally they have all had enough coverage in reliable sources to write a reasonable article about them (eg: see the good article Watford Gap services which has a whole section on being the "feeding trough" for 1960s rock bands, easily verifying it's not just some random building in the middle of nowhere). In the case of Doncaster North, with a search for sources, we've got a source that shows it exists, a passing mention, and some random news tidbit in The Sun. There's just nothing of substance to be able to write an article around it. Of course, if they were to pay tribute to the other Doncaster North and rename it Miliband services (with free complementary bacon sandwich), we might have something. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 16:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The word "populated" means that there are people there. A motorway service is required to be open 24*7 and so there are always people there. There is a hotel in the complex and so people sleep there too. WP:GEOFEAT refers to structures such as dams and bridges which are typically not so populated. Andrew D. ( talk) 23:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, nobody lives there - otherwise, all hotels would be inherently notable. SportingFlyer talk 00:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • It's a service station + a few other shops and smaller than most shopping centres. Notability is NOT inherited just because it is a geographic feature and it exists. Ajf773 ( talk) 00:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:GEOLAND establishes our common practise that populated places which are geographically distinct merit articles. One reason for this is Wikipedia has a role as a gazetteer per WP:5. Service areas are similar to railroad stations, airports and other transport nexuses which routinely get articles. They are signposted, substantial and legally recognised. My !vote stands. Andrew D. ( talk) 07:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
A shopping center is not a populated place, and that's in essence what these service areas are. This "every dot is sacred" approach does not have consensus; people are largely willing to have an article on every permanent settlement, but the notion that every commercial area, whether established with the help of the government or not, is not accepted. Mangoe ( talk) 10:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
We have many articles about shopping centres and so that analogy fails as an argument for deletion. But shopping is not the main function of a service area, which is more related to transportation. Mangoe has written numerous articles about lighthouses, which are another type of transport nexus. They may or may not be populated but, either way, they are significant landmarks. I take the same view of service areas; consider that they are a valid per WP:GEOLAND and so my !vote stands. Andrew D. ( talk) 22:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Lighthouses do not fall under WP:GEOLAND but rather WP:GEOFEAT as either an "artificial geographical feature" or an "artificial feature related to infrastructure." It's a similar story here. The difference is WP:GEOLAND assumes notability as long as the place can be verified, as Wikipedia is a gazetteer. WP:GEOFEAT only grants presumed notability to a select class of features (cultural/national heritage/protected sites with verifiable information beyond simple statistics), and if the article doesn't meet that standard, it has to meet WP:GNG. I'm fine if you think this meets WP:GNG and we'll disagree, but service stations are not presumptively notable under any current geographic standards. SportingFlyer talk 22:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The references in the article fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY as do all the other sources I can find in my own searching. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete—fails WP:GNG. When we deal with certain article subject areas, we presume notability. This is because editors have repeatedly determined that those subjects usually pass WP:GNG or meet another one of Wikipedia's core functions, so it's been a fair assumption that the rest of the articles in that area will as well. That's why we have pages like WP:ROADOUTCOMES to document these general findings to forestall endless AfD discussions with the same results. This has been a good rule of thumb, but it comes with a corollary: when a specific article is shown to fail the GNG test, then that article loses the notability presumption and gets deleted.
    It's been mentioned above that Wikipedia has a gazetteer function. Since a motorway service area isn't a populated place, and traditional gazetteers lack extensive coverage of MSAs, this article can't avail itself of any exception to GNG for this Wikipedia function.
    Additionally, it may be time to revisit ROADOUTCOMES' statement that UK MSAs are generally notable based on recent AfDs and the demonstration above that it's based on presumptions flowing from just two flawed discussions long ago. Imzadi 1979  → 18:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Imzadi1979: I think removing / revising ROADOUTCOMES makes sense; as I said above, the reason we generally have articles on British service areas is because they tend to meet GNG anyway. For example, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardiff West services, the article was kept (or at least not deleted) primarily because I expanded it and added many more sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That needs to be revisited and probably removed - that sentence was added in 2009 after two AfDs, both of which would likely be resolved differently today, especially since a number of UK motorway service areas have been deleted recently. I started a discussion on this on the talk page a few weeks back and if this is deleted I'll probably just be bold and remove or modify the outcome text. SportingFlyer talk 02:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ Gidonb: That has nothing to do with whether this article in particular is notable. There's no policy or guideline that states notability is presumed for British service stations. Jc86035 ( talk) 06:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Clearly fails the WP:GNG; what we're dealing with here is (ultimately) a run-of-the-mill shopping center. The claim in WP:ROADOUTCOMES about services clearly isn't good law given recent contrary AfDs and speedy deletions. It's meant to be descriptive, it doesn't carry the weight of policy, and it's inaccurate to boot. The claims about WP:GEOLAND must fail as well; if it applied to services where the population is 100% transient then every major (or minor) commercial complex would be presumptively notable, and this is not so. WP:GEOFEAT is obviously the applicable guideline inasmuch as this is a complex of buildings, but that section requires significant coverage in line with the GNG, and none is on offer here. Mackensen (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. The argument that service stations fall under the category of "populated places" is entirely baseless, if not ridiculous, as anyone remotely familiar with the oil marketing & distribution sector would tell us. I hope we do not have to argue too much about that. As to the point made about service stations requiring "acts of Parliament," at least in the UK, it is a disingenuous one: Parliaments pass laws that set the framework of requirements for a service station to open and operate. The permissions for each and every station, big or small, to operate are issued by the competent local authorities according to those laws.
As to WP:ROADOUTCOMES, it is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Even so, the text of that proposed essay advises editors to avoid weak or illogical arguments, such as "We always keep these articles". End of story. - The Gnome ( talk) 09:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 17:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Buriers

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

non notable band with minimal coverage (none significant and all along the conventional lines of low level entries of very small acts in music publications (e.g. the occasional gig review and album review)); none from large and prominent RSs.

vanity page created by subject. numerous issues with tone, content etc. fails Music and GNG Rayman60 ( talk) 13:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 13:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 13:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 13:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 16:10, 28 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. ansh 666 20:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Stone Makers

Stone Makers (  | 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 short film, nomination for a major award does not meet standards described in WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 16:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 16:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 16:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A nomination for a top-level film award like the Canadian Screen Award for Best Short Documentary most certainly is enough to pass WP:NFILM — it always has been enough before, and I fail to see why that should suddenly change now. By comparison, every film listed in Academy Award for Best Documentary (Short Subject) (the most immediate equivalent to this award elsewhere) is already a blue link, with not a single redlinked or unlinked title anywhere in that entire article — and it's not the least bit difficult to find within that list films that have no other claim of notability besides the nomination, and are sourced no better than this. As well, Emmy or CSA nominations are enough in and of themselves to get television shows over WP:TVSHOW, and film directors over WP:CREATIVE, and actors or actresses over WP:NACTOR; Grammy or Juno or Polaris award nominations are enough in and of themselves to get musicians and their albums over WP:NMUSIC; Pulitzer or Giller or Booker nominations are enough in and of themselves to get writers and their books over WP:AUTHOR and WP:NBOOK. So it makes literally no sense whatsoever for films to somehow be the only subject area in all of encyclopediadom where a nomination for a top-level award is somehow not enough. Furthermore, the article does include a source that discusses the film in much greater detail than just including its name in a list of nominees — I always wait until I can find more sourcing than just the list of nominees itself, whereas editors working with Academy Award nominees often don't — so notability is properly covered off. Does it need more before it can be considered a good article? Yes, absolutely, that's why I put a stub notice on it. But it already has enough sourcing, and a reasonable notability claim, to be a keepable article. Bearcat ( talk) 22:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep has some reliable sources coverage and nominated for a major notable award Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 16:10, 28 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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 05:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Archie Carter

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

Andy Carter represented Worcestershire in said T20 game, not Archie Carter, as confirmed by ECB, Worcestershire CCC, and ECB video shows Andy Carter. Player also confirmed as signing on 5 July 2018. Harriesss ( talk) 15:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Worcestershire confirm it in this article. [1] Harriesss ( talk) 16:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ansh 666 20:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Koronis Pharmaceuticals

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

article consists entirely of primary sources ... online search finds no other reliable references Wolfson5 ( talk) 17:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks! FWIW, I found most of these with Gale (publisher)/ InfoTrac/ProQuest/GeneralOneFile. My city and county libraries let you log in with your library card number. You can also get access to a ton of paywalled databases at The Wikipedia Library. Even if you can't get your own login to a databse, or don't have time, you can also request someone who does have access help you at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. If I had fully formatted all of the citations I'd have used {{ Subscription required}} to note the General OneFile source but I was only trying to ID the existence of the sources. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Alas there are two databases on wiki library that I'd like access to. Unfortunately, everyone else seems to be of a similar mind - unobliging souls! Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 16:02, 28 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. ansh 666 20:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

El amor brujo (novel)

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Relist. Unorthodox, I know, but there were too many of these quick nominations for adequate scrutiny. Coverage here and other book results here deserve more time for evaluation. Other uncommented nominations are being closed as soft delete, which is fair. I'd like this one to get more attention. Mortee ( talk) 15:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Fair enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 15:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. Regarding Mortee's link above, I suggest searching for "Arlt" as well as "Arit", for Arlt+1932, and so forth. This book is also known as Sorcerers Love, Love the Magician, Love the Sorcerer, Bewitched Love, Bewitching Love, Bewitched by Love, the Love Wizard and so forth. James500 ( talk) 10:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
d'oh, yes "arit" was a typo. Mortee ( talk) 00:22, 30 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Últimos días de la víctima (novel)

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG.  » Shadowowl | talk 14:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • So? It satisfies criteria 3 of WP:NBOOKS. The guideline says that it is encyclopedic. The guideline says that Wikipedia does include books which have been adapted into notable or otherwise significant films, which this one plainly is. James500 ( talk) 22:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    It also says "This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." Also notability isn't inherited.
    Furthermore, "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." This article has no reference. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • 'Not inherited' is an essay. You cannot use an essay to reject a guideline, you need another guideline or a policy. In this case you would have to argue to WP:IAR the express and unambiguous wording of guideline, and that is generally an uphill struggle. In this case, it should be an insurmountable climb, as there is nothing resembling a good reason to ignore that part of the guideline. As for reliable sources: Here are some sources for the Oscar entry: [49] [50]. There is also a source in the film's article which you have overlooked. Further, the film has coverage in GBooks which satisfies GNG, so it is notable. Finally, a source that the 1982 film is an adaptation of the 1979 novel by Feinman: [51]. Further, the 1979 novel satisfies GNG due to coverage in GBooks etc. QED. James500 ( talk) 23:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 15:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect I held my tongue on this because I figured if the book has been adapted to film then that content can't be incorporated into our article on the author, even if the claim that the film is an adaptation of the book is currently unsourced anywhere on English Wikipedia, but the fact that James500 apparently went and looked for a source to verify that claim and came up with a bare GBooks link to an anthology of short fiction that doesn't appear to say anything on the matter [52] [53] has tilted me against preserving this article as is. No prejudice against a better standalone article being created if someone can write more sourced content than is already there. And this doesn't even touch on the wikilawyering "essay vs. guideline" remark above, which is complete nonsense (the guideline is a guideline, and not a policy, because it is meant to be flexible and applied based on circumstances; an argument based on the circumstances of this "article" as it stands now is permitted, AFAIAC, to incorporate elements of a widely held editorial opinion like WP:NOTINHERITED). Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • If you do not use speech marks, the search engine will return nonsense. Instead search for this and this which show that the book clearly states that the novel was adapted for film. Further, this says the same thing (that the film directed by Aristarain is an adaptation of the novel by Feinman) and is available in full page preview. James500 ( talk) 01:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Well, the first search you cite says nothing whatsoever about the film adaptation, while the second and third say Feinmann, a screenwriter, wrote the film script based on a version of the novel, which actually cancels out my above concern that if the book has been adapted to film then that content can't be incorporated into our article on the author; actually, our article on the author doesn't even describe him as a screenwriter at present, so that's all the more reason to incorporate the content of both this "article" and the source you have cited in this AFD (but made no attempt to use to improve the article) into the main article on Feinmann. Again, if you want to actually build an article on the novel to the point where it provides unique information that wouldn't be more useful to readers if incorporated in the Feinmann article, fire ahead. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Okay, I didn't notice that Feinman was the screenwriter (I must be going blind), but ... I'm afraid I have discovered that the book appears to have been adapted twice. The second adaptation is called "Two to Tango" (1988) directed by Hector Olivera: [54] [55] [56]. Variety says it is an adaptation of the book and a remake of the first film (with Feinman as screenwriter again). I have every intention of expanding the article on the novel, it is just that I can't expand 147 articles and deal with the same number of AfDs (some of which are now over), plus new AfDs, at the same time, so there might be a slight delay. James500 ( talk) 04:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The 'not inherited' argument is not based on the circumstances of this article, since no exceptional circumstances have been identified. The only way to apply 'not inherited' would be to delete the reference to a significant or notable motion picture from criteria 3 of the guideline altogether for all books whatsoever. Making an exception to the guideline means distinguishing the guideline by identifying some material fact that is present in this case that the guideline does not mention; it does not that we can completely overrule the guideline by deleting part of the guideline altogether, which is what is proposed here. James500 ( talk) 01:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The exceptional circumstances are that you claim that because the film, which was written independently by the same author based on the same story he created, was put forward as an Academy Award contender, that makes the novel notable. I'm not saying that I agree with that argument, just that it is a valid argument and to talk about "essays" and "guidelines" despite this is unhelpful. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This article is in the process of being expanded. It contains accurate, verifiable information that is not included in the article about José Pablo Feinmann, or in the article about the 1982 film. WP:PRESERVE applies to the content of this article. James500 ( talk) 03:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The book seems to meet our notability criteria and I'm not seeing any satisfactory reason to delete the article even though the criteria have been met. There may be good editorial reasons to merge this article with content on the author or on the films but this should be left to emerge by talk page consensus as the overall editorial situation develops. Thincat ( talk) 14:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per James500 and Thincat rationales. Notability satisfied. -- 1l2l3k ( talk) 20:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - going by WP:NBOOK, criteria 3 says "...made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture...". As source material for Argentina's (unsuccessful) 1983 nominee, which was one of only 17 films produced that year,[ [57]], I'm going with a weak keep. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete Per nom, Plus an opinion that is somewhat valid but not really: By my understanding, this is on Spanish Wikipedia. If someone is researching this book, chances are they can read Spanish. They don't need an english article on Wikipedia for it, especially a bot-generated one. Before deletion nomination, the article barely hit 2 views daily, usually receiving none. Why keep it? Redditaddict69 ( talk) 22:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ansh 666 20:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The Swallow Song

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

Was prodded and deprodded before. Fails WP:NSONG and has no references. » Shadowowl | talk 19:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
You would have to determine if it should be redirected to Richard Fariña as the songwriter or to Ring Them Bells on which Joan Baez did a somewhat notable rendition. Probably not worthy of a protracted primary topic analysis. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 14:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 15:30, 28 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. ansh 666 20:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Jaswinder Singh Jassi

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of the head of a political party's youth wing. As always, this is not an office that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because the person exists, but he's not referenced well enough to clear WP:GNG in lieu: the references are a YouTube video of him speaking, and glancing namechecks of his existence in two newspaper articles about other things. This is not how you reference a person as notable enough for an encyclopedia article: he has to be the subject of reliable source coverage to get in the door. Bearcat ( talk) 15:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Agree with the Nom. This is a non notable budding politician. Nothing notable so far to merit a BIO. fails WP:GNG. I will also inform other AfD contributors that this name is a fairly common name in India and you may get several false hits.-- DBig Xray 12:12, 29 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. Mackensen (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Heimat ist das, was gesprochen wird

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

One line, none notable book. Suggest redirecting to Herta Müller. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 71#"AFD is not for redirecting"?, there is a consensus that redirecting may be discussed at AfD. It seems worthwhile to have some further discussion of whether this book is independently notable, or whether it should be redirected to the article on its (very notable) author. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Este sau nu este Ion (3rd nomination) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Im Haarknoten wohnt eine Dame (3rd nomination).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 15:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Authors do not win a Nobel for a particular book, but for their overall work. (It's not like the Pulitzer). Any full-scale book by a author of such great importance is in my opinion almost certainly notable, and the article should be sourced by those who can work in the appropriate language. I strongly favor redirecting and combining for minor authors. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Sourced and expanded. AFD is not for suggesting redirects, neither is it a venue for discussion of subjects that have already been kept by clear consensus in a previous discussion. Sam Sailor 05:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Umm the closing remark of the discussion is "There is a ☑ clear numerical and policy-weighed(For one, the arguments about utilizing RFD is flat-out improper.)consensus that AfD is a right venue to seek for redirect(s), which have been challenged.The first attempt at redirection ought be directly attempted per our principles of being bold." So yes AFD is the place to suggest redirects that has been challenged. And in this case it was challenged since was said the article should be kept as is because of notability. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 20:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply
No, you get it wrong, the article has never been redirected, consequently there has never been a revert of the redirect (a challenge). The sentence "And in this case it was challenged since was said the article should be kept as is because of notability." makes no sense. Sam Sailor 16:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 16:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Im Haarknoten wohnt eine Dame

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

One line, none notable book. Suggest redirecting to Herta Müller. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 71#"AFD is not for redirecting"?, there is a consensus that redirecting may be discussed at AfD. It seems worthwhile to have some further discussion of whether this book is independently notable, or whether it should be redirected to the article on its (very notable) author. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Este sau nu este Ion (3rd nomination) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heimat ist das, was gesprochen wird (3rd nomination).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 15:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Authors do not win a Nobel for a particular book, but for their overall work. (It's not like the Pulitzer). Any full-scale book by a author of such great importance is in my opinion almost certainly notable, and the article should be sourced by those who can work in the appropriate language. I strongly favor redirecting and combining for minor authors. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Mueller's writing is covered in multiple book-length studies, e.g. [58] [59] [60], and there is sufficient information to produce an article. Probably meets WP:BKCRIT #5 although that's very vague. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 13:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Suggestions to redirect an article should not be brought to AFD unless a previous WP:BLAR per policy Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection has been challenged, cf. the recent discussion at Special:Permalink/852737171#"AFD is not for redirecting"?. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 06:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Este sau nu este Ion

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

One line, none notable book. Suggest redirecting to Herta Müller. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 71#"AFD is not for redirecting"?, there is a consensus that redirecting may be discussed at AfD. It seems worthwhile to have some further discussion of whether this book is independently notable, or whether it should be redirected to the article on its (very notable) author.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 15:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Authors do not win a Nobel for a particular book, but for their overall work. (It's not like the Pulitzer). Any full-scale book by a author of such great importance is in my opinion almost certainly notable, and the article should be sourced by those who can work in the appropriate language. I strongly favor redirecting and combining for minor authors. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - As per DGG and User:James500. Being a stub of a notable topic is not a reason to delete an article. Stubs of notable topics are always better than no articles. -- Oakshade ( talk) 04:24, 31 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. Sam Walton ( talk) 15:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Laetitia Kudriavzeva Lo Iudice

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

Article about a non-notable person with a lot of irrelevant claims and puffery. » Shadowowl | talk 13:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Thank you very much for pointing me to potential weaknesses of the article. I would greatly appreciate if you could provide instances of irrelevant claims and puffery. As for notability, I agree that from a formal standpoint, the article may not meet the requirements for notability. But I rely on the insights of the editors to grasp the idiosyncrasy of the subject matter. As a matter of fact, there is a striking contrast between the popularity of Laetitia Lo Iudice in Tunisia, to which bear testimony the space devoted to her in tunisian television channels and the number of her followers on Instagram (circa 500000), the paucity of articles covering her activities on the web. Hence, I think such case deserves a special treatment, taking into account the margins for improvement. Ahmed Lili ( talk) 17:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Spam about a non-notable person. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 15:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The references demonstrate that she is a well-known celebrity who passes GNG. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 20:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Spammy article about a non-notable person. The references are brief articles, some only mentioning the subject only in passing. -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Is not notable, does not meet GNG. Lack of independant sourcing."Laetitia first gained recognition as a columnist in the popular talk show L'émission, before raising to stardom through her Instagram profile" is partly referenced by a Youtube clip of the subject slowmotion walking up a flight of stairs as the camera focuses solely on her behind, followed by slowmotion bouncing about soft porn style. It along with another similar clip (making up 2 of the 6 refs) appear to be from her own youtube channel. Curdle ( talk) 10:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:N and do not have reliable independent resources. NANExcella ( talk) 11:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ansh 666 20:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Japanese Rail Sim

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

Game which doesn't meet WP:NVIDEOGAMES. All sources are the developer's website.  » Shadowowl | talk 13:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no independent sources, so fails WP:GNG. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Actually I did translate the Japanese wiki page into English, thinking it would be ok like that(sorry for this). After some more research, articles on 4gamer.net (one of the biggest Japanese game information websites) do clearly state what articles are directly copied from the game developers and what articles they wrote their own. Like here (where they state it is a message from the developer) and here where they wrote the article themselves. I'll update the article with sources as soon as possible, please do not delete it yet. (SPSPC) 02:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPSPC ( talk) • contribs) 03:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Updated the page with external sources & moved the official page links to the external page links part. SPSPC ( talk) 03:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 15:07, 28 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. Seems reasonable consensus that with additional sources, notability requirements are met (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Parque Naucalli

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

Crappy bot article. Non-notable park which PROD was removed without reason.  » Shadowowl | talk 12:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 14:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 28 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. Strong consensus that with additional sources notability has been satisfied (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Parque de la China

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

Crappy bot article. Non-notable park which PROD was removed without reason. » Shadowowl | talk 12:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 14:41, 28 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. There are good arguments on both sides of the debate. The only consensus that I can discern is that the article needs significant work. No prejudice against taking this to AfD again if improvement (and good sources!) is not forthcoming in, say, another 6 months. Randykitty ( talk) 11:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Older people's associations

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

Lacking useful content Rathfelder ( talk) 20:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete too generic, too broad, and "this needs to be expanded" is not a valid argument against deletion. If there really exists enough material to create an article (I personally doubt it) then the article can always be re-created with such content. Amsgearing ( talk) 22:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I added in referenced mention of two different nations that created these. It can be expanded. They may be called something else in some nations. Dream Focus 03:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The only content here concerns specific associations/projects/programs, rather than about a broader concept called "older people's associations". Extrapolating the definition based on a couple examples, without in-depth coverage of the subject on its own seems more like OR. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The expansion shows why the article in misconceived. There are many different older people's organisations, all different depending on context. The fact that they are called Older people's associations doesn't mean they have anything in common. These bits should be in articles relating to Cambodia and Sierra Leone. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I'm confused because the title is in lower-case suggesting a general concept, while the bolded first sentence is an upper-case proper-noun eg. a specific named corporate entity such as an NGO or GO. Which is the article about? -- Green C 14:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ GreenC: The article was not created by an experienced editor and so the formatting of the case is not significant. That editor also created an article about a specific NGO -- HelpAge International -- which is active in this field and my impression is that the term "older people's association" is commonly used by such international organisations to refer in a general way to self-help associations of older people, which exist in many countries. The scale of these can be quite huge -- the WHO source indicates that China has about half a million such associations. As different countries will handle this in different ways, this is a broad concept. Our guidance is that, while such articles can be difficult to write, we should still have them. WP:BROADCONCEPT gives examples such as supreme court or ministry of finance. The particulars of these will vary from country to country but there's clearly an overall concept which is sensible for an encyclopedia to summarise. For a comparable example in the age field, consider youth club. That's a well-understood concept in the UK but the link now redirects to youth center, because someone moved it to a supposedly more general term. Whatever you call it, there's clearly a similar need for pages describing the general concept of a youth organisation. The same applies to organisations of older people. Andrew D. ( talk) 14:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
It appears HelpAge International invented the term and concept in 1998 in Cambodia (just added to article). With their help it has spread, but it's not HAI-specific as other NGOs have started OPAs (Sierra Leone) and countries have adopted the model and run it themselves. -- Green C 15:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are 10s if not 100s of millions of people in OPAs, mostly in Asia though the model appears to be spreading to other countries. There are plenty of reliable sources, notability is not a problem, I added some but there are plenty more. Rhododendrites is incorrect about no sources that discuss it as a whole. That argument also contradicts Amsgearing who says it is 'too generic and broad' - which is it, too specific or to generic? We have sources that discuss both big picture, and specific. The assertion that they have 'nothing in common' is incorrect as sources show they are discussed as a group and given a common name (OPA) - they are different in local aspects to remain flexible to local needs but they are similar in other aspects. If the country-specific sub-sections get long enough they can be split off to separate articles but doesn't make sense to do it yet. -- Green C 14:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Seems to be a niche or fringe concept, but worse: It contains no real meat, and has been a stub for over 10 years.
    Should someone some day, within next century or so, find something making the article worth reading, then it can be created at that time. -- DexterPointy ( talk) 21:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • If we want an article addressing the concept broadly should it not be called Seniors' organizations in line with the category? Rathfelder ( talk) 09:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 14:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem like a vague topic to me, but I did read all the sources about it online. It's basically just an open source version of the AARP exported to third world countries and China, with individual customizations on a per country basis. Lots of institutional ideas from the West have been exported this way, how developing countries become developed quickly without having to reinvent the wheel. -- Green C 21:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Tirthak Saha

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Being on the Forbes list is not sufficient to meet notability especially as he is not on the 30 under 30 but on one of the 30 lists of 30 under 30 (900 people in total) and for the moment he has achieved nothing of note. The sources are not sufficient to show he meets notability requirements. The article creator claims no COI and has just been in contact with the subject to request his photo. Dom from Paris ( talk) 06:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 06:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 06:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 06:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply


  • Keep This article very clearly meets WP:ANYBIO. "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.". Forbes 30 Under 30 is a significant national award. The nature of the Forbes List is to highlight distinguished and notable individuals in a given field. There is no singular "30 Under 30" list - every year Forbes releases lists in 30 categories that comprise the "30 Under 30". Any person on Forbes 30 Under 30 is on a specific category list. [2] Further, 900 people out of 54,000,000 people eligible (age 18-29) in the US. [3] which makes the subject part of 0.00167% of the eligible population. As per the sources of the article, he does in fact have significant accomplishments, including being a finalist in the NASA RASC-AL scientific contest, his scholarly work on "Planitia-Hellas Human Advanced Martian Environment (PHAME)" and his project with American Electric Power, for which a $1 Billion initiative to modernize the electrical grid is being implemented The coverage of these avoids WP:BLP1E

Lastly, here is a short list of articles that are deemed notable primarily for their recognition of the Forbes 30 Under 30 List:
Danielle Fong
Himansu Gupta
Henry Lin
Alvin Salehi
Nikil Viswanathan
Justin Lewis (entrepreneur)
Ryan Williams (entrepreneur)
Param Jaggi
Amber Yang
-- Ngunmo ( talk) 15:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "GUPTILL REWRITES RECORD BOOKS WITH FASTEST EVER T20 TON BY WORCESTERSHIRE PLAYER". Worcestershire CCC. 28 July 2018.
  2. ^ "30 Under 30: 2018". Forbes.
  3. ^ Bureau, US Census. "National Population by Characteristics: 2010-2017". www.census.gov.
  • Comment Bringing up WP:OTHER is helpful here, as the deletion discussions of the cited examples specifically cite non-Forbes 30 under 30 notability criteria for keeping those articles, e.g. winning awards or meeting other academic criteria. If there are multiple independent reliable sources that show the subject meeting other notability criteria, then notability would not hinge solely on whether Forbes 30 under 30 is considered a significant award. Bakazaka ( talk) 23:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Thank you Bakazaka. It would appear that WP:OTHER is relevant here indeed. I cited those articles to show that the subject's notability should not hinge solely on whether Forbes 30 under 30 is considered a significant award, as the cited articles were deemed notable for their contributions/awards in addition to their Forbes 30 Under 30 awards per WP:BASIC. For example, Amber Yang won "the second-highest award at the 2017 Intel International Science and Engineering Fair" in addition to the Forbes award. It is not likely that Yang would have been deemed notable based solely on the Intel award. While I am not saying the subject is notable just because other articles exist with awards of similar caliber, the subject we are discussing has 6 instances in addition to the Forbes award that document an award received, a major contribution to his field or both. These instances are all well-cited by independent secondary sources. The article clearly falls well within WP:BASIC and does not fall under WP:BLP1E. -- Ngunmo ( talk) 15:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The case for notability would be clearer if the article contained references to significant coverage of those accomplishments by independent reliable sources. Currently the references include an alumni blog, the subject's own work, a YouTube video from the subject's employer, and a listing of participants in a NASA event, none of which count toward notability. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That's perfectly reasonable and very helpful advice, thank you. The inclusion of the subject's work and the list of NASA finalists was to show factuality rather than notability but I absolutely see your point. I have edited the article to include several new sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] -- Ngunmo ( talk) 03:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Tirthak Saha, rejected by DU, Delhi boy features in Forbes 30 Under 30 List". The Financial Express. 22 November 2017.
  2. ^ "The inspiring story of Tirthak Saha, who is now on Forbes' 30 Under 30 list". GQ India. 29 November 2017.
  3. ^ "Young Fort Wayne engineer with Indiana Michigan Power makes Forbes energy list | News, Sports, Jobs - News-Sentinel". News-Sentinel.
  4. ^ "Not bright enough for DU, but fit to join Zuckerberg, Malala on Forbes list - Times of India". The Times of India.
My mistake about the 30 under 30 the trouble is that when people use this as a way of showing that the person is notable they never say that they are on a specific list and give the impression that there are only 30 recipients and not 900. That said all the articles are based on his being named on the list and some put him in the same class as Zuckerberg which is ridiculous. For the moment all he has achieved is getting on the list. Looks like a WP:BLP1E. And a case of WP:TOOSOON. Dom from Paris ( talk) 06:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I understand the confusion about 30 Under 30 - I've corrected the article to specify the category for the award. All of the sources were cited because they give significant and unbiased mention to the subject's other achievements in addition to the Forbes award which I referenced in my earlier comments. Regarding the Zuckerberg comparison, it is not uncommon for journalists to reference other notable recipients of the same award and they were making this comparison on the basis of being on the Forbes 30 Under 30 list. It is factually correct that the subject earned the same award as Mark Zuckerberg. Please correct me if i'm wrong but if you read the cited sources, they do not make much claim of similarity beyond the fact that the subject and Zuckerberg were both 30 Under 30 Recipients. I will concede that I am new to Wikipedia so please let me know if there are other things that can be done to better the article. -- Ngunmo ( talk) 15:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Zuckerberg's claim to notability on Wikipedia is not dependent on his listing in the Forbes 30 under 30. But in this article the multiple, reliable, independent sources supporting notability are driven by the Forbes listing. That's a WP:BLP1E pattern. The other sources do not support notability, as the article's creator has said. So WP:OVERCOME seems relevant here. Bakazaka ( talk) 17:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 14:38, 28 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. North America 1000 14:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Nritya Creations

AfDs for this article:
Nritya Creations (  | 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 was discussed at AfD in 2009, but closed as no consensus. I cannot find any substantial sources that would indicate the group passes our notability criteria. It was argued that the group winning an unspecified international dance competition was sufficient to keep it last time, but simply winning one competition is not enough to grant notability. What's important is reliable sources discussing the win, which aren't present here. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 06:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 06:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 06:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 14:37, 28 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 delete per G5 (created by a banned user). Hut 8.5 20:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Brazil–Sweden football rivalry

Brazil–Sweden 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)

The article provides no evidence for either the existence or the notability of such a rivalry. The only source used in the article is to a results database. The prose of the article is completely unsourced and seems like the author's own opinion of how the countries should view each other rather than encyclopedic information. A Google search only produces one result [65] that mentions the teams in the same sentence, a list of the best "World Cup rivalries" which openly admits that the inclusion of the match-up (in last place) is not because it has any of the characteristics of a rivalry but only because the teams have played each other many times in the World Cup. BlueSwede92 ( talk) 13:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. BlueSwede92 ( talk) 13:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude ( talk) 07:27, 31 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. Consensus to keep given adaptations and reviews satisfying notability requirements (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The Strangers in the House

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 13:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Crappy bot articles may be crappy bot articles but don't need crappy bot nominations. If the issue is that they're crappy and unsourced, I wouldn't mind deletion -- but it doesn't look like the claim about notability is based on anything at all, since even a 5-second google search of the name of the book plus the author's last name turn s up a whole bunch of sources. Wouldn't be !voting keep if none of them were in the article, but given the addition by Mortee, keep per WP:HEY. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Mortee. Satisfies WP:NBOOK by virtue of having been adapted for film. James500 ( talk) 21:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. With four film adaptations and multiple reviews (not all of which are in the article), this does pass NBOOK. It needs to be expanded, but that's not something to delete it over. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ansh 666 20:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Adewale Aladejana

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

fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NOTSOAPBOX the sources are a mix of PR puff pieces product placement, blogs and interviews. The article makes false claims such as "He was named one of the 100 most influential Nigerians in 2017" whereas the source states "LIST OF 100 MOST INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE IN CHRISTIAN MINISTRY IN NIGERIA". Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry but $10 million is not that big of a deal and secondly did you have a look at the source that claims it is worth this much? With quotes like "Adewale is married to the most beautiful woman in the world; the sultry, elegant, irresistible Oluwatoyin and they are blessed with two princess Ruby and Zoe" this does not look like a serious bit of journalism. It also claims he graduated from the Medill school of journalism that has produced 38 Pulitzer prize winners...they produced 28 so not good on fact checking. Dom from Paris ( talk) 05:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I created the article. I will edit accordingly and remove the puff. He is a notable entrepreneur in Nigeria who built a million dollar business from the scratch. Please keep. Thank you.
  • Delete. There is specific criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Arguments like, "He's a good person," or "I am impressed with," should not be part of AfD. We should be pointing to criteria like WP:ANYBIO and, above all, WP:GNG and say the subject does not meet those criteria. It's not a judgement call on the individual, simply they are not notable enough for inclusion in a world-wide encyclopedia, WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY. Ifnord ( talk) 21:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 12:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete: I have gone through this subject earlier, and discovered he wasn't notable. I can't go back to my findings. Reply for the keep above - The $10m dollar claim is not from a very reliable source. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 22:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 20:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Chris Beake

Chris Beake (  | 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:NGRIDIRON #3 as he is an assitant coach and fails WP:GNG Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 12:39, 28 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. ansh 666 20:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Tom McMahon (American football coach)

Tom McMahon (American football coach) (  | 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:NGRIDIRON as has never been a head coach and fails WP:GNG Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 12:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • delete Only routine sports coverage with most sources being Broncos' media guide. Seems to be part of an attempt to give every Bronco assistant coach an article.14:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 17:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Greg Williams (American football coach)

Greg Williams (American football coach) (  | 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:NGRIDIRON #3 and WP:GNG Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 12:39, 28 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. ansh 666 20:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Tyler Hill (American football)

Tyler Hill (American football) (  | 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:NGRIDIRON #3 and WP:GNG Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 12:39, 28 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. ansh 666 20:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Loren Landow

Loren Landow (  | 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:NGRIDIRON #3 and GNG Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 12:39, 28 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. ansh 666 20:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Anthony Lomando

Anthony Lomando (  | 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:NGRIDIRON #3 and GNG Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 12:38, 28 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. ansh 666 20:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Chris Strausser

Chris Strausser (  | 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:NGRIDIRON #3 and GNG Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 12:38, 28 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. ansh 666 20:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Mic Diggy

AfDs for this article:
Mic Diggy (  | 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 I cannot see the 2016 version that was ultimately deleted, this go at the article seems to be much stronger. Its best claim at notability seems to be Musiobio #11 but sourcing in article is YouTube and I couldn't find any RS to support. No RS is present in page (Zambia's Daily Mail likely would be but articles present are user generated). Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Barkeep49 According to you, Zambia Daily Mail is only reliable if the article is written by a paid staff of ZDM. Kelvin Kachingwe has been writing for ZDM for a long time now. So what exactly is your point? Cause really if you took time to actually read the article there are various references there. Regarding Newdiggers, tumfweko, zambian observes. All not reliable sources to you ? Vicmullar ( talk) 17:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC) — Vicmullar ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Vicmullar, the references are very poor – lots of links to music streaming sites (which don't prove the music is notable, simply that it exists) and blogs which don't pass WP:RS. It's not Barkeep49's opinion that only articles by paid staff count as reliable, it's Wikipedia's standard for reliable sources – please read WP:RS to see what sources are acceptable. The Zambian Observer and Tumfweko sites are exactly the same story, word-for-word, which probably means Tumfweko is a blog that copies news it finds on other outlets. In any case, the news story in question simply calls Mic Diggy "a fan" and says absolutely nothing about him... it doesn't even say that he is a musician himself and provides zero meaningful content. The two sources related to his supposed biggest performance fail to mention him at all, so there is no proof that he actually performed at the Mosi Day of Thunder. Richard3120 ( talk) 19:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Richard3120 ACTUALLY,THE ARTICLE daily-mail.co.zm/mic-diggy-signs-cd-run IS WRITEN BY A PAID ZDM STAFF MAKING IT A RS. SEE HIS ARTICLESS ON ZDM. MIC DIGGY WAS A FAN Of SLAP DEE, AND WAS INFLUED BY SLAP DEE AND ZONEFAM FROM WHAT I KNOW HENCE THE FAN STATEMENT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.77.149.190 ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC) — 41.77.149.190 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Checking Kelvin Kachingwe's credentials, you are right, he is a senior journalist at the Daily Mail so it passes RS. But still, this looks like the only useful RS in the whole article, and it needs multiple reliable sources to be considered for retention. I don't doubt that Mic Diggy might have been a fan of Slapdee, but there is nothing in the sources provided that prove that Mic Diggy is a musician himself, that he has made records, or that the tweet resulted in a long-running beef between the artists... so the sources provide no useful information and do not support any of the claims made in the article. Richard3120 ( talk) 13:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Edit: in fact, looking into it further, there's no evidence that this was a "highly publicized beef" between the pair – Slapdee reacted badly to some criticism, and that's it... there is no evidence that he had any idea who Mic Diggy is, or that he recorded a diss track in response to the criticism. The whole incident seems to have been blown up out of all proportion in Mic Diggy's mind, but there is no evidence that either Slapdee or the Zambian media took any notice of this supposed feud, apart from the one interview on Unza Radio... which is sourced to Mic Diggy's own YouTube channel and therefore fails as a primary source. Richard3120 ( talk) 15:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm sympathetic to the idea that Mic Diggy is notable in Zambia - judging notability in many countries is hard. However, despite good faith efforts by Vicmullar I don't think it has yet been proven to Wikipedia's defintion as Ricahrd3120 has shown here. I try not to get involved in AfD discussions where I've nominated (think frequently no one looks good there) but wanted to note that this analysis is in-line with mine. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I agree, which is why I don't want to jump and say "delete" just yet, because there may be reliable Zambian sources. I just wanted to note that as they stand, almost all the sources are bad ones, either linking to music streaming sites, Mic Diggy's YouTube channel, or obvious blogs, and that few of the claims in the article have any evidence supporting them. Hopefully the article creator or another editor can find some good sources to show this article is worth keeping, but unfortunately at the moment I can't. Richard3120 ( talk) 16:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Not to disagree with you folks, you both have valid points. I like the point Barkeep49 made saying "judging notability in many countries is hard" correct. Know why? i Don't even know where this discussion started from but hey, i was actually researching mic diggy, cause of a song i heard on radio last night. Saw the knowledge graph thingy clicked on it, cause i was curious that's how am here. Am not a fan of his just yet but i like selected songs. Point am trying to make is that, in Zambia if you do a little bit of digging you would say there is literally no celeb. what i mean is that the industry is small, no paparazzi non of that. And mostly its blogs that promote/talk about musicians alot. Most things including music, interviews are posted on youtube. And if you can randomly pic any zambian musician on here, 3/4 you will find a ZDM link somewhere, and ZDM don't just write about anyone. News papers rarely write about musicians Unless its a scandal. There's no big websites like in the US or any other western countries. Blogs do most of the publishing. And regarding the mosi day of thunder thingy, the chap was actually there, he performed under "Many more". I don't know if in other countries there's such a thing as many more, where a main act and various artists are allowed to support the show by performing 1 or 2 songs. And the ZDM article actually states that mic diggy is a musican. There are a lot of blog links i can share with you guys for the sake of seeing the picture not to change anything. And one thing i should say is that, if you both used this energy to actually, develop the article, then it would be better. Remember 2 is better than one and change start with you all. Am not a wikipedian i don't much of the rules here so i can't contribute. Peace hope you guys reach a better agreement

PS I don't know if this will help but these are some of the links to mic diggy's music, https://www.datafilehost.com/d/32826236, https://www.datafilehost.com/d/f49f780a https://www.datafilehost.com/d/3584de30 and the download numbers ain't bad. 10,000+ , 4000+, 8000+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.56.52.141 ( talk) 19:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

No, the download links don't help, that's just promotional spam and only proves his music exists, not that it's notable in any way. My cousin has music available on iTunes and Amazon, and she's not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article either. What makes you think we haven't made any effort to try and improve the article? We just haven't been able to find any more reliable sources apart from the ZDM one. Blogs won't be acceptable I'm afraid, and we can't take your word for it that Mic Diggy performed at Mosi Day of Thunder, we need a reliable source talking about his performance by name and in detail. Yes, a main act and support acts is exactly how it works in the US, UK and other countries... but if an act is only the support, that doesn't make them notable here either. If any Zambian editors can provide links to in-depth articles from reliable sources (not blogs) about Mic Diggy, we'd be glad to see them and it might make us change our minds. Richard3120 ( talk) 20:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Richard3120 I don't think they added the link to spam or promote anyone but to talk about "numbers" not your cousin. Anyways the reason Barkeep49 nominated the article was because according to them the ZDM article on Mic Diggy was not a reliable source. Now that we all know that it is, i don't see the reason the the deletion tag should be up. And i'll take time to summaries and edit out a few parts, till i get additional references. Regards Vicmullar ( talk) 03:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Just to clarify I have always hedged about ZDM - saying it likely is RS. Even if it is, one of the articles does not appear to be written by ZDM staff. The second article [66] is not about Mic Diggy (and doesn't mention him at all) so it doesn't help prove Mic is notable. My bottom line is that there is not sourcing available to prove he's notable and so my !vote remains delete. Best,

Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC) The article daily-mail.co.zm/mic-diggy-signs-cd-run was written by Kelvin Kachingwe and if you see his credentials, he is a senior journalist at the Daily Mail so it passes RS Richard3120 confirmed that. My vote is you remove the deletion unless you have any other agenda Vicmullar ( talk) 03:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Vicmullar, the requirement is for multiple independent sources, so we need more than just the one ZDM source. And it's not up to the nominator to remove the AfD tag, that will be done by the administrator once a discussion has taken place over the next couple of weeks, hopefully with the involvement of more editors, and a consensus has been reached about this article. Richard3120 ( talk) 03:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Saying the article has no sources is an understatement. I vote undelete. the article passes * Notability guide for musicians etc.

"Saying the article has no sources is an understatement" - nobody has said that, and you haven't shown how the article passes either of those guidelines. Richard3120 ( talk) 19:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment I have been able to dig out some sources. Here is this article about him published in 2015 by Lusaka Times ( Artist Profie : Upcoming Rapper Mic Dee), of course we all know about Zambia Daily [67], both RS news agencies in Zambia. Senegambianamestudy ( talk) 16:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure the Lusaka Times is a reliable source, actually – its "about us" page [68] describes it as an online platform where anyone can contribute items and the author "Kapa187" doesn't sound like a professional journalist's username. Richard3120 ( talk) 17:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • There is no such consensus designating Zambia Daily Mail a reliable source. I have not seen a valid argument towards its reliability here or elsewhere. You can't just declare it as such. And again, the WP:GNG requires multiple sources. At the very very lowest, that would be 2 sources required, though many editors require 3-5 to be convinced, especially in things like WP:BLPs, which have much stronger requirements for sourcing statements. Sergecross73 msg me 21:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment Sergecross73 i don't really think that just anyone can add content on Lusaka Times have you tried ? for arguments sake. Vicmullar ( talk) 19:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Sergecross73 didn't say that, I did – I based that on this direct quote from their website: "Lusakatimes also provides a platform for any Zambian who want their article published"... that doesn't sound like there is any editorial control over what articles appear on the website. Richard3120 ( talk) 19:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Correct. It sounds like it would fails WP:USERG. (Also, potentially WP:ROUTINE as well.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 12:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Richard3120 Please do further research before making assumptions. Vicmullar ( talk) 16:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Er, why should I assume the Lusaka Times is reliable when all the indications are that it isn't? Richard3120 ( talk) 20:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Richard has done sufficient research. You are the one who has made no valid argument towards the websites reliability. It doesn’t seem anyone in favor of keeping has any knowledge of Wikipedia’s standards for source reliability and subject notability at all. It’s all desperate grasping for straws and appeals to emotion. No valid argument has been presented yet. Sergecross73 msg me 00:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply

commentI don't think anyone is emotional here, its just that others fail to respect other people point of view. There are claims on this thread stating that ZDM musical articles can not be RS without notable sources. Lusakatimes is actually a RS in Zambia. Check the wikipedia List of newspapers in Zambia. So according to your arguments you deem Lusakatimes unworthy because its about section states "Lusakatimes also provides a platform for any Zambian who want their article published" You should note that Zambia is a big country and its population isn't 100 or 1000 people. PS there are alot of musicians in Zambia, they do provide the platform to anyone meeting their criterion of notability. I think you should contact them and find out more from them. And secondly since when do you judge the professionalism of journalist based on their names ? what's next? skin color?. According to you we are all ignorant now ? please lets learn to respect each other. I don't agree with your methods but i respect you

This response is exactly what I’m talking about. The above comment gave zero valid reasons for being reliable, and then started a random musing if determining sources reliability will somehow lead to bigotry and racism. That’s about as emotional of a response possible. Its not just a matter of not seeing eye to eye; there’s no past precedent for any of the things you’re saying here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment i came across this https://zambianeye.com/mic-diggy-apologies-to-slap-d-on-znbc-radio-4s-hip-hop-eardrum/ hope it helps and is a RS

Chabota Kanguya abeg, typical Crab mentality.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 20:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Antti Litmanen

Antti Litmanen (  | 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:PROD removed. His notability is derived from the non-notable band Babylon Whores, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babylon Whores. The person's role in Mana Mana is very minor. No evidence that WP:MUSICBIO is met. I don't think this is a good redirect to either of the bands. — Kusma ( t· c) 19:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 04:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 04:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 11:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable. And he's "just" a guitarist not even the lead for the bands. The singer Ike Vil has a lot more mentions in sources and even he doesn't have an article. -- Pudeo ( talk) 19:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Some debate about whether WP:G11 applies or not, but unanimous agreement to delete via non-CSD means. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The Typing Game

The Typing 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)

In my opinion, the article's only reliable source that establishes notability is SmallBizTrends, and even this is of dubious reliability; the other pages are primary sources (e.g. Google Play) or not professional websites (e.g. Bored Panda). For this reason, I declined the submission at AfC two days ago, but the creator—well within their right—moved this into the mainspace with no further edits.

Pinging Firefly and Heliosxeros, who also reviewed the draft at AfC (when it had the same sources it currently has). — Bilorv (c) (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • There are many AfC submissions that by-passes the submission process and jumps to mainspace. This article in particular, not only that it doesn't have reliable sources, it doesn't give in-depth in terms of notability. Hence, delete. EROS message 12:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment ​ Fair enough. I think we disagree on what exclusively promotional means – for me, the entire article would not look out of place on an ad for the software, and all of the citations, save one, are fundamentally promotional, there is sufficient reason to apply WP:IAR. Since there is a product description which might be considered encyclopedic, I agree that there's room for interpretation – though I think the last paragraph is definitely promotional, being essentially download links, and the last sentence of the product description still might be. It looks like it'll be a moot point though, since this AfD will be closing soon anyway.—  Alpha3031 ( t • c) 13:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • IAR almost never applies to the deliberately strict CSD criteria; that's why PROD and AfD exist. I think this is important to bear in mind in any future tagging you do: PROD and AfD are the options for pages which do not unambiguously meet a CSD criterion. — Bilorv (c) (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I realize that CSD criteria are not to be ignored, rather my interpretation is that the whole speedy delete thing is already IAR and SNOW. Yeah, I agree that if there's an objection then it's no longer speedy-able. It's probably better to have the discussion sometimes anyway.—  Alpha3031 ( t • c) 14:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 20:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Mike's Hard Lemonade Co.

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

No evidence of any notability and searches reveal very little better. Two of the refs are their own web-site. Another ref is an item about the sale of the company and the other is clearly a press release. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   10:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Rhododendrites; it's a well-known and widely-available drink brand, covered by Newsweek as long ago as 2001. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • More sources from 2001 [69] [70] and 2002 [71] [72]; and a mention from more recently. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Addendum Sifting through LexisNexis, for the fun of it, I found 995 exact-text matches for "Mike's Hard Lemonade", including this 2013 piece in the New York Times. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Addendum to the addendum I should add that of the 995 matches on LexisNexis, 806 are for newspapers, and 21 are for "industry trade press". There's a strong representation from Canada, particularly in the earlier years; e.g., articles in The Vancouver Sun from 3 August 2001 and 2 December 2003, and The Toronto Star on 19 April 1998. The older stuff isn't all online, that I can tell, apart from archival databases. An amusing quote from a 28 August 1999 profile in the Financial Post: "'The focus groups have shown us that the use of a man's name, and particularly a name that sounds down-to-earth or 'basic,' coupled with the word 'hard,' creates a very compelling image for younger members of the adult population." More recently, there was a fair bit of reporting on their $350-million acquisition by Labatt. Many of the hits are just mentions, where Mike's Hard Lemonade is used as a prototypical example of an alcopop (but it does seem to be one of the two or three standard examples). Some go into more depth. I will try to sift further if I get a chance; after all, what better use is there for institutional access to LexisNexis? XOR'easter ( talk) 22:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep between the company and the brand Mike's Hard Lemonade (a redirect to that page), there's certainly enough coverage. Rhododendrites and XOR'easter have found links so I don't have to. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the above found sources. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the above arguemnts amount to WP:MUSTBESOURCES. It's not enough to deduce they're out there somewhere. The sources have to be identified and cited. The ones offered so far are general articles about the beverage business that mention Mike's Hard Lemonade alongside several other brands. Or they are superficial routine coverage, such as "Mike's Hard Lemonade introduces 8-ounce cans", clocking in at all of 243 words. Those sources fail WP:CORP and WP:GNG. This is a run-of-the-mill company that, minus the breathless boosterism the fluff reporting, basically does business the same as any other brand in the same niche. What facts we do have about it can be placed in an article like Malt drink, since what we have here is a typical example of a company that makes a niche beverage. I'd flip, and support keeping it I were shown sources (non-trival) that met all of the minimum criteria at WP:ORGCRIT. Right now this company's claim to fame is that they have grown to a certain size. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I thought this would be obvious, but Dennis Bratland makes a good point about the sources being pretty weak. However, my search turned up enough coverage about its ads to convince me this isn't an obvious delete, but is a weak keep. I thought that article talking about the ABC affiliate in Chicago not airing its ads, but showing its competitors ads, was interesting and should count towards the coverage. I also think that being an industry leader should also be taken into account, but I could be wrong about that. I think the coverage squeaks by for notability. Sandals1 ( talk) 14:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Might be a "leader" in the sub-sub-sub niche of malted lemonade alcoholic beverages, but that niche is not an "industry". And whatever the brand is a leader in, our sources are the ones who should be telling us that matters. If being a "leader" in whatever category you want to call it is significant, then we should we reading significant coverage about Mike's Hard Lemonade, with that the main topic and the coverage telling us things about Mike's Hard Lemonade. They could be the least selling product in their category and be notable if the sources cover them. The article about the rejected ad is mostly about the TV station that rejected the ad, and about other companies who also had rejected or controversial ads. It's about a dozen paragraphs long and only three or four sentences are actually about Mike's.

      Somebody needs to clearly cite even one news, magazine, or book source with significant, in-depth coverage of Mike's Hard Lemonade itself, not other things, and not routine announcements and trivial coverage, enumerated at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of trivial coverage. It shound't be this hard to scrape together sources for a topic if it is really notable. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 20:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Agnes Kagure Kariuki

Agnes Kagure Kariuki (  | 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 clear evidence of any notability. She has won local business awards in the Insurance industry - great, but not notable in Wikipedia terms. Another ref is an interview - not independent, another is her own Facebook page. Her "fame" is within a small niche of the insurance industry. Appears to fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   09:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. After chancing upon the article yesterday, I was also preparing an AfD nomination for it today. Although listed as a notable businesswoman (but fails under WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO), her real claim is being included on a list of 22 potential replacements for the position of deputy governor of Nairobi. While not initially selected (Miguna Miguna was but then found to be ineligible as a dual citizen), she appears to still be in the running with the usual list of supporters and opponents, some of whom appear to be editing on Wikipedia. Even if she is selected and appointed to this position, she would still fail WP:POLITICIAN as it is not a 'notable' position. Loopy30 ( talk) 12:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The two of you have probably been looking at a version of the article that had recently been edited in a biased manner, which removed a significant amount of information and several citations to reliable sources that discussed the topic. The subject of the article has been involved in high-profile land disputes that have been the subject of rulings by the National Land Commission and the Environment and Land court, and has been accused of other financial improprieties, all of which has resulted in significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There is a single-purpose account that has recently been trying to remove certain information from the article and replace it with promotional phrasing. I suggest looking at it again (and perhaps reviewing the article history in case that happens again). — BarrelProof ( talk) 19:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I take your point. However, being a criminally corrupt individual does not, by itself, convey notability. I remain unconvinced that the restored text and its sources add sufficiently to the article to pass the notability bar. I would however agree that should the article be retained, the restored text should also be retained.   Velella   Velella Talk   20:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Since the above remarks, I just added some more information to the article, including citations to three more reliable news sources that indicate both that she was a major focus of consideration as deputy governor and that her high-profile court disputes were causing difficulty in her consideration. I think it is clear that she has received significant in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. — BarrelProof ( talk) 20:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I did indeed look at the complete history of the article first before composing my comment above. While there were/are SPA's adding biased (or at least unsourced) information both positive and negative, my real concern is the notability of the article subject in toto. The article claims notability as a businesswoman but does not support that. As a politician (which she is not), the position for which she is being considered (amongst 21 other people on the list) is not a notable position. As a party to land disputes and financial improprieties, if these cases are notable, then it is these court cases that should have a page, not the individual. Loopy30 ( talk) 21:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment moved here from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Agnes Kagure Kariuki, since it seems to be trying to influence this discussion:
Please the author who put this up was biased and quoted a court case which is on going, which is illegal in my country Kenya, the subject is a mother of two and the reference to her in such demeaning words is damaging and full of malice, surely we have to protect living human beings from such auditors who have no facts apart from bloggers articles, please administrators delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge Cloud ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Fair enough, I was referring to an article about the office itself but you are right. SWL36 ( talk) 20:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 10:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

List of The Edge Chronicles characters

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

Fancraft, no notability Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages.

Twig (character) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Quintinius Verginix (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Undertown (The Edge Chronicles) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sanctaphrax (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Riverrise (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Geography of the Edge Chronicles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 14:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Voika

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

Another one of these crappy articles. Mass created by a bot. All Starzynka articles should be evaluated. » Shadowowl | talk 19:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've undone Shadowowl's own unexplained non-admin "keep" closure,see WP:BADNAC. If there is no further comment, this AfD may be closed by somebody else as withdrawn.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:GEOLAND is a guideline, not a policy.
- WP:GEOLAND says "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low."
Let's look at the core of it, i.e: "typically presumed to be notable"
There's nothing typical about how this article came to exist.
- It was created by Starzynka, without honest or deep thought about notability of the creation.
But let's pretend to ignore that, and read "typically presumed to be notable" as if it says "always presumed to be notable".
- The whole point of having an AfD, is to investigate an article's merit. That is, not to go by presumption, but to actually go locate & :evaluate evidence of merit.
In short:
- A guideline is not policy.
- The word "typically" is not a synonym for "always".
- The word "presumed" is not a synonym for "assured".
DexterPointy ( talk) 21:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Nothing notable about this; it has a zipcode, and multiple weather forecasts are available.
    From https://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voika (and more): It had a population of 203 (at end of 2011), there's a tiny local history museum, and it no longer has a railroad stop (removed in 2008). In the village is "Voika Kabelimägi", which is noted as an archaeological site, by virtue of it being a former cemetery.
    If this obscure village is notable, then I'll consider writing an article about "The cotton club" (aka. the drawer where I keep my underwear)
    DexterPointy ( talk) 22:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is a gazetteer per the notability of geographic features page. Since this is a verified place, the presumption here is absolutely correct. Compare to a number of AfDs regarding Somali populated places which could not be verified. SportingFlyer talk 02:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. All villages are notable per GEOLAND. There is a presumption that sufficient offline sources exist. This presumption appears to be a good one, since I happen to know for a fact that many local history books about certain parts of Britain, never mind Estonia, have never been digitised. Bear in mind that digitised online books tend to come from large university libraries in the USA, with all the systematic biases that implies. No comment on whether GNG is satisfied in this case. James500 ( talk) 05:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    @ James500: You just voted Keep on presumption alone!
    The same guideline also says: "geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Therefore, the notability of some geographical features (places, roadways, objects, etc.) may be called into question.".
    -- DexterPointy ( talk) 08:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Again, Wikipedia is a gazetteer, meaning that per GEOLAND if a populated place exists, an article is proper even when sourcing is minimal, insignificant, or in a different language. Based on Estonian census results and other sources including your own comments, Voika clearly is a real village - and the fact this was called into question have made the stub a better article than other villages in its vicinity. For instance, see: [74] [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Borani_Village] [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bonkuwal] or even [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orbitello,_Kansas] and as an example of a GEOLAND article failing WP:V [75]. SportingFlyer talk 09:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Wikipedia is NOT a gazetteer.
    The 1'st pillar of WP says:
    Wikipedia is an encyclopedia : Our encyclopedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.
Combing features of a gazetteer into an article is absolutely fine (and should be done), but an article MUST become encyclopedic: An article with no prospect of ever becoming an encyclopedic article, shall be deleted.
Note: WP:NOTEVERYTHING is policy!
-- DexterPointy ( talk) 11:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It can never be true to say that there is no prospect of developing a stub about a settlement into an encyclopaedic article. We have many thousands of good articles about small villages. If you're just saying this because it's in Estonia then that is in breach of WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It most certainly can be true: If no evidence of notability exist, then no such evidence can ever be provided.
There is a requirement for evidence to be produced, and the requirement is systemic to everything in the Universe, not just Estonia.
I have looked and have not managed to find the teapot, and if you insist that it's really there, then you got the burden of providing the evidence.
-- DexterPointy ( talk) 14:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Russian Imperial Union Order

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

Lack of notability. Alex Spade ( talk) 11:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 11:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 11:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma msg 19:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 11:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:25, 28 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 as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 20:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

TJ Rogers

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

Does not meet WP:NBIO nor WP:NSKATEBOARDER. » Shadowowl | talk 21:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 11:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment He's currently ranked 88th in the world [77]. I would say that's not high enough to show notability, but I don't know if he's been ranked higher. My search found a lot of ghits, but not much in the way of significant coverage. Most of the coverage was videos and many didn't seem to be independent. I'm not a skateboarding fan, though I appreciate the skill it requires, and right now I don't have the time to do the research required to cast a well-informed vote. Papaursa ( talk) 20:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:25, 28 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. ansh 666 20:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Madison House (Kincardine, Ontario)

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

Poorly sourced article about a house, whose only potential claim of notability is that it's purported to be haunted. But the only references present here are a ghosthunter's Blogspot blog and a tourist directory, which are not reliable sources for the purposes of establishing a house's notability. Haunted or not, houses are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but this is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get them in the door. Bearcat ( talk) 01:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 01:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 01:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - I came to this thinking delete. The only other source I could find about "Madison" was [78], which is primary (some kind of B&B) and weak as a source. However, in searching the address (343 Durham Market Square), the house is registered as a historic place in Ontario - [79] p. 8, [80], [81], [82]. However, it probably should not stay at the current title. Chris857 ( talk) 16:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Even a registered historic place still requires reliable source coverage, and isn't handed any automatic freebie on purely primary sources just for existing. Bearcat ( talk) 17:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply
No, they don't. GNG is media coverage, not government reports — if government reports conferred a GNG pass all by themselves, we would have to keep an article about every single building that exists on earth including residential houses. Bearcat ( talk) 22:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
It appears you have a fundamental misunderstanding of GNG and what types of sources are considered evidence of notability. GNG explicitly states sources of evidence of notablity include "but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals," not simply the ambiguous term "media." -- Oakshade ( talk) 00:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
No, I understand GNG correctly. For example, construction companies always have to file construction plans with a city planning commission before they can build any building or structure at all, and then the city planning commission has to vote to approve or reject those plans, or demand further changes to comply with regulations — meaning that every single structure that exists can always be sourced to a government report, because no structure ever comes into existence without being documentable to city planning commission files. You can't even put a granny suite in your backyard without the city planning commission having a file on that — so every granny suite in existence is documentable to government reports too. But we can't simply extend notability to every building that exists — so a building's notability cannot rest on routine sources that every building could always show, and has to rest on a class of sourcing that doesn't routinely exist for every building: namely, being singled out for special dedicated attention by media. Bearcat ( talk) 16:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
You're confusing routine building permits/applications and files that all buildings have with in-depth analysis and historical context reports' that are not just documents on file at city hall. Your granny suite in your backyard does not have a government in-depth report of the analysis of the historical significance of it as this topic does. If you'd like to change GNG to not accept reports by government agencies as evidence of notability, you need to make you proposal and case on the GNG talk page, not push your new agenda on a single AfD. -- Oakshade ( talk) 17:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete In order to pass WP:GEOFEAT: Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. I don't see the reliable third-party sourcing here yet. The government documents that grant historical significance appear primary - perhaps I'm wrong on this. If precedent exists that all historically notable houses pass GEOFEAT please ping me. SportingFlyer talk 07:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Government reports on private entities such as this location are not primary. -- Oakshade ( talk) 16:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I disagree. Three of the four sources are from the city of Kincardine, which is the city that authorized its historical heritage, and are the documentation of the way it became a heritage site. The other is a walking tour of all the historic properties of Kincardine. Are you making the argument all of these heritage properties in this small Ontario town deserve their own wikipedia article based on WP:GNG? Because they should all have this level of sourcing. Even assuming the references are not primary, the sources are trivial - and the reason this house has an article in the first place is for a completely different reason, because it was listed on some haunted ghost tour blog or something. A historic property can be notable, and fairly easily so - but a property cannot pass WP:GNG if the only sources are the ones which reference the fact it's historical in the first place. SportingFlyer talk 21:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
This is easy. "The city that authorized the historical heritage" is not the property. The property is not the city, not owned by the city nor a city government entity. A property easily passes WP:GNG if the only sources are the ones which reference the fact it's historical, provided the coverage is in-depth as it is in this case. And in-depth historical analysis is not "trivial".-- Oakshade ( talk) 22:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
It's more difficult than you make it out to be per WP:PRIMARY. The local government ordinance is nowhere close to being an independent source. It's not as if the municipality is publishing information about this house specifically: this type of coverage would be expected for all heritage listed properties in the town. There's no other coverage of it anywhere. Not every historical building gets a notability pass for Wikipedia because it's historical, especially when the only documentation about its history is the type of documentation which exists for any historic building in any jurisdiction by the local government, which is what we have here. (along with a town "walking tour" which appears to list all historic properties in town.) SportingFlyer talk 14:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
You seem to be blending the claim that the government sources of this property are "primary" with regular notability arguments. It makes no difference if the government makes reports on all historic properties or just one as the government is still not the property and therefore not primary. Every National Register of Historic Places property would be considered "primary" under that scenario which of course they aren't. If you'd like to say "I don't think all properties the government considers historic are notable," fine. But to claim government reports are "primary" to private properties is simply false. -- Oakshade ( talk) 16:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm simply interpreting WP:PRIMARY properly: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. — which is what the Kincadine local ordinance and property description is. SportingFlyer talk 16:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Cherry picking a subsection of Wikipedia:No original research to attempt to show a government source is a primary one to a private property really looks like grabbing at staws. That quote is meant to discourage original research, which of course this is not. Just that the secondary source is geographically close to the topic doesn't magically transform it into a "primary" source. And I'm surprised I have to say this, this property is not an "event." Anyway, since you're valuing the content on the NOR page and classifying this topic as an "event," WP:SECONDARY states a secondary source "provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event." The property is "at least one step removed" from the government reports and those reports are the very definition of WP:SECONDARY. -- Oakshade ( talk) 22:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I feel like you're grasping at straws to keep an article which should clearly be deleted, to be honest. Let's recap: Does this property get a notability waiver for being a Canadian National Heritage Site? Not from any available sources, no. Does it get a notability waiver for being an Ontario Heritage Site? No, as there are many of these sites. Perhaps this notable enough for a list. The only available sources shown for a keep are primary sources showing the property is an Ontario Heritage Site, which can be expected for all properties on the Ontario Heritage Site list (I'm excluding the one or two sentence blurb from the walking tour brochure.) No other sources are available... and again, the reason this article exists is to promote a "haunted house." They may not be primary sources since the owners of the house didn't write about the house and try to get it published. SportingFlyer talk 06:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Now you've changed the subject as your "primary" argument holds no weight. Sorry, it was you who was grasping at straws with that attempted application of WP:NOR for your false argument that government reports on this private property were "primary." The in-depth coverage from the detail analysis of the government reports easily show this passing WP:GNG. Your false "those are primary sources" argument didn't work. If you think this or any article "should clearly be deleted" then try to build a consensus for your opinion which doesn't seem to be happening. -- Oakshade ( talk) 19:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over again. The government sources aren't primary to the house, but they are primary to your concept of notability (that the house is notable because the government has made it a local heritage site), and if we accept them, we erode WP:GEOFEAT by allowing features included at the sub-national heritage level to be included in the encyclopedia. Give me a secondary source that's more than a couple sentences. SportingFlyer talk 08:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Now you're not even reading correctly. The property is notable because of in-depth coverage from secondary sources, in this case government reports. The government is secondary source even by your standards of applying the WP:NOR policy which you linked to above. Now that you're finally admitting the government sources aren't primary to the house, let's move on. -- Oakshade ( talk) 15:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
First, this should not be outright deleted, because merge to the list-article is available as an alternative to deletion. It does not yet seem to be included in that list-article; it should be added. I myself am not familiar enough with Canadian historic places to understand why it is not yet listed there; User:Magicpiano is an editor who has developed that list-article and others like it and I would be glad if they could comment here.
I prefer "Keep" over "Merge" because the information available, i.e. this source given above, suggests to me it is equivalent to U.S. National Register of Historic Places eligibility ("Italianate architecture – low pitched mansard roof – centre tower on the front façade – windows with rounded headers and decorative keystones and a verandah with Greek columns – built in 1870’s by Thomas C. Rooklodge whose family operated the “pork factory” / Designation By-law – 4641 Date Designated: January 3, 1985 ). It would be nice to have a separate nomination document about it, and I presume such exists, [it does exist] although it is designated by the province of Ontario [by local government] and is apparently not a Canadian national historic site. -- Doncram ( talk) 17:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC) --17:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Doncram: It's not equivalent to the national register of historic places: see Ontario Heritage Act. It shouldn't be on the list you mention. I would be a keep if more historic notability could be shown; this is just a property which a local municipality has declared a local heritage site, but there are many of these sites in this town alone. SportingFlyer talk 17:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
(ec) I was going to say, in fact there is separate nomination document (linked above) sufficing to provide information to develop the article more, and IMO comparable to U.S. National Register documentation. Based on photo of the house, I would have called it Second Empire in style, with elements of Italianate as Second Empire buildings often have, but the summary above was just calling it Italianate. However the Walking tour brochure does term it Second Empire, so that can be used in the article.
I do think it should be included in the Bruce County historic places list article, which is supposed to cover sites designated "locally, provincially, territorially, nationally, or by more than one level of government." Given your assertion I am not sure if it is province-level or not (what does according to Ontario Heritage Act mean, I will go look that up, yes [okay i see the provincial act gives authority to local government] ) but it is at least locally-designated. We do have list-articles about local registers in the U.S., and about individual places on just a local register if there is adequate information, as there is here. There's plenty about it, IMO. This is fine to Keep and develop. -- Doncram ( talk) 17:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
To be clear, all of the locally designated historic places can/should be covered in the Bruce County list-article or a separately-broken out list-article about places in Kincardine alone. They don't have to get separate articles, necessarily, but they can get separate articles if there's enough info available, as there is here IMO. -- Doncram ( talk) 17:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
And about the "primary" quality of the sources, as Oakshade notes above, they are not primary to the property; calling them secondary is more appropriate. SportingFlyer is right that as local sources they are not quite as good as sources that have undergone more levels of professional review, and none is guaranteed here. U.S. NRHP listings do get some state-level review reflected in modifications to the application forms. But state-level or local-level source forms are in fact used directly in many NRHP listings, with or without any further documents from higher state or national levels (although there may have been higher review in fact or at least potentially). So we have to go partly on the apparent quality of the documents, which seem okay to me. -- Doncram ( talk) 17:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
To settle one question, I just began adding Kincardine locally-designated historic sites to the list-article. Note the list-article has a municipal listing identifier column which I am trying to use, but having some trouble (discuss at Talk:List of historic places in Southwestern Ontario#Kincardine local historic sites). There is no "Notes" or "Description" column, so it is not feasible to merge all available material, even to give a single descriptive word like "Italianate", into the list-article. Unless the standardized format of this Ontario historic places list-article is to be changed, it seems we need to "Keep" the article to allow description. -- Doncram ( talk) 18:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
This conversation should occur on the talk page of that article. I disagree with what you've done, as that list is for registered historic places as searchable on [83] - there is only one registered building in Kincardine, and it's not this property. This is why I'm fighting for a delete, where I am probably a lean keep on geographical AfDs: all we have to go on is a primary document for a provincial heritage registry, not something which would automatically be notable. SportingFlyer talk 18:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Also, this document: [84] says Kingston has over 1,000 places on the Ontario Heritage register, but only 120 on the national register. I can't find anything showing this is on the national register, and in the absence of documents on the property that don't relate to its local listing/aren't primary, I don't think it can be kept. SportingFlyer talk 18:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Okay maybe the Kincardine ones should be in a separate new list-article, and maybe not in that Southwestern Ontario list-article, and that is being discussed there, including with more info about the Kingston example. However IMHO there certainly should/will be a list of Kincardine municipal historic sites somewhere. So the existing Madison House article will not be an orphan; it will be listed in context somewhere. However we still have more reliable enough info about the architecture and history of this house than will be covered in such list-article, so keeping a separate article still makes sense. Of course we should drop most or all of the rubbish about being haunted.
Maybe we should not get too bogged down in whether to call the available official coverage "primary" vs. "secondary". I suppose you can call it primary if it is written without including explicit sourcing to other documents, and I think these do not include lists of references. However there are 70,000 Wikipedia articles about U.S. NRHP places which mostly are sourced just to documents relating to their listing, which you may call "primary". Many of the NRHP documents do reference other sources; many do not. You can't be too harsh about "primary" sources; they are allowed in Wikipedia as long as they're not being stretched to make disputable points. I don't think it is controversial to say the Madison House has elements of Italianate style, etc., based on the local listing saying so, plus the photos which show those elements to the informed editors. -- Doncram ( talk) 20:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Well, we've decided that NRHP and Canadian national historic places can get notability waivers — in this instance, we're dealing with a property whose only sourcing is its addition to a local heritage list. Whether an article on the local heritage list for a 12,000 person town is notable is not for me to say at this point, and I don't mind if the information is captured somewhere, but there's nowhere near enough to keep this particular article at this moment. SportingFlyer talk 06:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the very lengthy discussion above, including a *potential* ambiguity in GNG vs GEOFEAT being discussed, I'm going to relist this again
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final re-list; should be closed as no consensus if no editors' comment subsequent to this...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment What, is this still open. Source(s) were found to develop the article. It is listed on a local historic register, and there is plenty of info to be reported. The comment that there is "nowhere near enough to keep this particular article" is just wrong, IMHO. I would say "obvious keep" at this point. -- Doncram ( talk) 06:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the sourcing does not justify a stand alone article. Although that is true for the majority of articles we have on buildings. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Chris857, Oakshade and doncram. Satisfies GNG. Registered under the Ontario Heritage Act. The sources are fine. The "registered by local government" argument leaves me completely unmoved. If it is a listed building, it is listed building. Deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R, since this could be merged and redirected to the area in which it is located, Kincardine, Ontario. (For the avoidance of doubt, Durham Market Square or Street or whatever, Kincardine has coverage apart from this building (eg By-law 518), so an article on this Durham Market location is an option for compromise). James500 ( talk) 07:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE. I dug deeper into the interwebs by removing the word "Ontario" and finding several potentially good sources, including books. If it's "listed" provincially, that should be in the article before this AfD is closed. Bearian ( talk) 16:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ansh 666 20:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Google Code Jam

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

Subject of numerous minor mentions, but fails to gain any significant coverage in reliable sources, thus failing WP:NEVENT. A very few sources like [85] are semi-reliable, slightly promotional or don't give any general view on the Google Code Jam, instead barely focusing on a single edition of the competition or conducting an interview with one or more participants. WP:NORG can apply here with regards to the content of the sources that are promotional. There is no valid merge target, since it's organized by Google, and the Code Jam probably deserves no more than a sentence on the Google article. wumbolo ^^^ 12:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 13:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - This is a very difficult one to decide on.
    Clearly, this is not something which gets mentioned in common reliable mainstream media.
    The sources writing about this, i.e. online technical magazines etc., may fail being classified as reliable & independent.
    Websites, which does have articles about this, make a living of their traffic, and the brand Google is great for attracting visitors (generating revenue). This in turn means that sources may have written about Google Code Jam, solely because it carries the Google brand.
    For something to be of encyclopedic value, then it must have an audience, aka. readers. It's not enough that someone what to write about something, in a (more or less) vain hope of attracting readers.
    A further complication is cyclic referencing. Example: A writer working at magazine X, reads a press release from Google about Google Code Jam, and notice that WP got an article about it. The writer then decide to write an independent article about it, because the existence of a WP article is evidence (though not proof) of notability. Since WP editors can't generally tell why articles about a topic was created, it's easy to see how a cyclic state of notability gets to be.
    Finally, as far as what Google Code Jam is, it's actually as much of a Google promotion as it is a real competition.
    -- DexterPointy ( talk) 13:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Unsure about this one. Yes, the article could describe the structure of the competition better. Nevertheless, GCJ is a major competition, and I would say it's fairly well-known among contest coders. That's not really a good argument for keeping it, of course. Another factor is that some of the coverage is probably just routine coverage, because this contest is related to Google. Enterprisey ( talk!) 06:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • DeleteMerge to Competitive programming, after going over the sources again. I don't think the competition has received significant coverage. If it were really a notable competition, we would've seen some articles focused on it in the technology-focused news media. As it is, we only have passing mentions in some books and the 2014 Mashable article, which looks pretty routine to me. Enterprisey ( talk!) 19:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    Changed to Merge after DexterPointy pointed out (heh) the better option. Enterprisey ( talk!) 19:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving credence to Coffman's Google Books' results, while the discussion seems to be tending towards delete, giving it another re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:17, 28 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. ansh 666 20:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

La Demoiselle de magasin

La Demoiselle de magasin (  | 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 encyclopedic. A one-line article, notability close to zero, and nearly 8 years of being a useless stub.
The article had a grand total of 177 views for the entire year of 2017, and those probably mostly due to error by people looking for the painting, not this play.
-- DexterPointy ( talk) 10:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Comment for closing admin :
    The user, who created this article, was indefinite blocked in Oct.2010 for abusing multiple accounts.
    Before that, the user ( Starzynka) had created a great number of articles.
    I picked one at random, and ... articles seemingly created without any care for notability.
    I bet a long cruft list can be compiled.
    -- DexterPointy ( talk) 10:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
And not just articles about obscure literary works; he also seemed to have taken pride in creating an article for nearly every house in Serbia.
: e.g. Kravlji Do which is village w. a population of 355 people.
Do you know of a way to automate cleaning up this mess?
-- DexterPointy ( talk) 20:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ DexterPointy: Maybe everything can be draftified just like that happened to 02Blythed's cricket stubs. I don't see that happen to the village stubs though (not the village parts which you mentioned), as there are too many it exists people who will defend those stubs. -- » Shadowowl | talk 11:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The conversation about Serbian villages etc doesn't belong on this particular page, but yes, populated places are presumed notable according to WP:GEOLAND, so you could probably expect some people quoting policy. Mortee ( talk) 19:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for failing notability and verifiability. Zero sources for a play that's been around for 105 years. If notable of inclusion as a stand alone article it should not have been hard to find some RS since then. Blue Riband► 02:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
To be fair, many sources from 1913 would not be available online (yet). 96.127.242.226 ( talk) 04:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment - Not proof of notability, you're jumping to conclusion.
"Along Came Ruth" is a silent movie, a MGM production from 1924 (and it's also a lost movie).
An American silent movie, can not be auto-equated with a French play.
It's perfectly fair to mention the French play in the article for "Along Came Ruth", but the French play itself needs its notability proven.
(Parents also don't automatically become notable, just because their children gains notability.)
-- DexterPointy ( talk) 02:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I search and found only a few snippet views in google Books of the fact that the play exists. There are probably reviews and sources out there, but they are not digitized yet. 96.127.242.226 ( talk) 04:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, or merge into Along Came Ruth. As Eastmain pointed out, this was adapted into an English-language play, which turns out to have been produced by Henry W. Savage with at least one song by Irving Berlin. That was then turned into a silent film. In the case of books, being adapted into a notable film is itself a sign of notability ( WP:NBOOKS #3). I'd say that applies to plays as well. As the IP above points out, most RS are likely to be offline given the play's age. The alternative, since we haven't identified specific, in-depth, secondary coverage yet, is to merge into the existing article about the film, but discussing two plays and a film in one article feels slightly clunky. I wouldn't object to that but I would object to a flat deletion. Mortee ( talk) 19:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:12, 28 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. ansh 666 20:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

St. Xavier's Higher Secondary School, Thoothukudi

St. Xavier's Higher Secondary School, Thoothukudi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG The Banner  talk 08:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 10:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 10:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 10:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete lacks the independent, reliable sources required to establish notability. 96.127.242.226 ( talk) 18:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Most schools this age are notable and it is easy to find sources to demononstatre WP:NORG. This school is an exception. I was unable to find good sources in either English or Tamil. The has a few more sources, but they appear weak via machine translation. I suspect that there are offline Tamil language sources that would demonstrate notability, but until such sources are located, this article should be deleted. — BillHPike ( talk, contribs) 22:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've also been having trouble finding sources, at least any that do not appear to be Wikipedia mirrors, or just mentions in passing in non-reliable sources. I can't even verify that the school is still open, and the school's web page is dead. Note that anyone looking for sources should also try searching using with the English place name "Tuticorin" not just with "Thoothukudi". I'll hold off !voting to see if anyone had more luck finding sources than I did. Meters ( talk) 23:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
They have a Facebook page with a recent post, so I imagine they are still open. RS are another issue. 96.127.242.226 ( talk) 04:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
This might be used to confirm its existence, though no date is given here. Jzsj ( talk) 18:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Just existing is not good enough any more. The notability has to be proven. The Banner  talk 18:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm not saying they are closed, or that if they were open it would be sufficient, just that I can't even verify that they are still open. I wouldn't accept the school listing page as proof. Looking at the directory information http://www.southindiaonline.com/tamilnadu/tuticorin/ I can see that the page has not been updated since 10 December 2010. As for the Facebook page, it does not appear to be an official school page, but rather an alumni page. It has only had five posts since 2014: a group photo from 2009; a spam request for a kidney; some undated building photos; a job posting, and not one that would be useful to a new graduate; and some memorabilia from more than 25 years ago. This is typical of the type of traffic on alumni sites, and is certainly not evidence that the school is open.   Meters ( talk) 18:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Doesn't "once notable, always notable" apply here? In that case, whether they are open now or not would not matter. 96.127.242.226 ( talk) 22:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Please read what I said. I didn't say that it should be deleted because it is not open, or for any other reason. I reserved comment on that. We're having trouble showing notability, and I merely pointed out that the sources are so weak that I can't even tell if it is still open. I asked for help finding sources on the school. So far no-one has provided anything usable. If you found something better than the almost dead alumni Facebook page you gave us then please provide it. Meters ( talk) 01:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, a reliable source that the school has been around since 1884 would go a long way to showing notability. Unfortunately, that claim may not to be correct. The cited source is dead, and while this ref mentions the school and 1884 the context is actually in reference to different school which moved in 1884, and later ran into enrollment problems because of competition from St Xavier and others..
So there's a Tamil Wikipedia article. That's nice. It does not make the subject notable, and more than the Tamil editors arguing that the existence of an English Wikipedia article shows the notability of the subject for inclusion in the Tamil Wikipedia would. The contents of the Tamil article also do not help. It is nothing but a translation of the English Wikipedia article from June 2017. Before I realized that I started to check the refs that are in the Tamil article that are not in this article, and the first one I tried was a piece of malware infested crap. Meters ( talk) 19:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - We keep high schools because experience shows that, with enough research, sources can almost invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. English Google is a poor tool for finding sources on schools in the Indian sub-continent. Very few have much of an Internet presence. We need to avoid systemic bias and allow time for local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated. Several sources have already been found which is a good start. Just Chilling ( talk) 21:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, one passing mention and two book covers. Systematic bias in this case is the deliberate lowering of notability standards to find an excuse to keep the article. The Banner  talk 21:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC) And the same happens with others schools on other continents reply

References

  1. ^ R. Sinnakani (2007). Tamil Nadu State: Thoothukudi District. ... Government of Tamil Nadu, Commissioner of Archives and Historical Research. p. 1006. Retrieved 18 July 2018.
  2. ^ Tuticorin deep sea harbour project: souvenir. Tuticorin Harbour Development Council. 1964. p. 119. Retrieved 18 July 2018.
  • Keep. Thanks for the significant reference that traces the origins of the school to 1600. It is notable for its historical roots as "the oldest eductional institution in Thoothukudi". Jzsj ( talk) 02:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I assume that you have reliable sources in the Tamil language to add to the article? The Banner  talk 20:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
These attempts to keeps schools without satisfying the notability guidelines is equally sad and hilarious. And you know quite well that schools are deleted due to lack of notability and not by mistake. The Banner  talk 08:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
What you were doing, The Gnome, was nothing more than singing the already shot down song of SCHOOLOUTCOMEs that schools are kept because school articles were kept in the past because school articles were kept in the past because school articles were kept in the past because school articles were kept in the past because school articles were kept in the past because school articles were kept in the past because school articles were kept in the past etc. Without any foundation in policies or guidelines. The Banner  talk 08:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Greetings. As it happens, I do not subscribe to the current practice of never deleting school articles and that should be obvious given my proposal over at the Notability talk page. The link's up in bold. I make similar sarcastic comments in most school article AfDs. It's just a let out. We merrily violate policy ("shot down"?! nope!) but one lone editor cannot do more than have some lame fun. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk) 16:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Well said.These AfDs are becoming typical drama-fests.Same faces on same sides, each aided by their own rhetoric. ∯WBG converse 03:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
And because I'm tired of the charade I react with humor (call it irony, 'sokay). See, for instance, one more example further below of the cyclical reasoning prevalent in school AfDs: "Keep. We generally keep such schools according to long standing precedent." In other words, keep that because we keep that. Penrose stairs! - The Gnome ( talk) 06:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Ha! :) I, (in my early days at School AfDs), had the misfortune to be indulged into trying some reasoning with the most vocal proponent(s) behind omni-keeping of schools but once one of them argued around the rough lines of Since we are keeping all football players, who have played just one match, we will be keeping schools, at an equivalent rate., I was in sufficient senses to pull myself out. ∯WBG converse 10:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Yep, I have heard the comment about a school without sources along this line: If you can not find sources, you did not search hard enough. Every trick in the book is used to avoid the question of notability. The Banner  talk 14:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is not evident, given that comments from editors post the previous re-list (with due respect to them) lack both policy and guideline basis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. One reads at WP:WHYN: "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with the Wikipedia: No original research requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources." Beyond that the burden of proof is on those challenging the reliability of a school's website, and the websites of other organizations. Is the matter falsely promotional, or is it factual so as not to mislead those who need to know about the school? There would be consequences for any school that is promoted through lies, and the burden of proof is on those who claim that the information given is not reliable. Jzsj ( talk) 09:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Cherry picking the luxe...
Do not forget the rest of WP:WHYN, Jzsj. Not every Jesuit-started organisation is automatically notable. The Banner  talk 16:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • No need for such cynical remarks. I have suggested that reviewers take more responsibility for accepting articles like those on social development organizations. I was misled for years by their accepting articles without even a tag; due to their acceptance of the articles I concluded that one independent source and more than regional reach were sufficient for notability. Jzsj ( talk) 16:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • That precedent is long gone, mr. Kudpung, and you know that quite well. But it is much easier to hammer on a by now historic precedent that actually adhere to the policies and guidelines. The Banner  talk 08:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
That precedent has not changed one iota, nor has your blatantly obvious serial campaign against school articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
So you still have no policy/guideline-based arguments to show? The Banner  talk 11:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Please drop it.None of you are going to convince the other and this back&forth will hardly make a difference to the outcome, whichever way that tilts. ∯WBG converse 13:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Avoiding the waste of time is always welcome but I believe demanding to know the policy behind another editor's suggestion is a legitimate query. Even if the question has been asked many times before and if all those times the answer was nowhere to be found. Otherwise, these AfDs truly serve no purpose. No harm in reminding ourselves of the existence of vacuum! - The Gnome ( talk) 08:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The sad thing is that somebody is already threatening me with blocks because I challenge his non-policy/guideline based views... The Banner  talk 09:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That is quite expected. You failed to get any "English" Language sources "online". When we should be looking for "Tamil" sources and "offline". I see here a clear disregard for a rather obvious language and regional WP:BIAS. Remember not every country in the world has a habit of putting everything online. Even then there are a few english sources that provide enough info to conclude that it is notable. results, facilities -- DBig Xray 11:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • We need significant mentions in RS.No body is doubting the existance of this school.As to offline sources, I've an access to repository of all prominent Indian newspapers, (1960-2012/13), courtesy my university library.As I said at JsJ's t/p a few days back, I did run a search expecting to get non-trivial hits but umm......, nothing much except routine (mentions of results), (bytes by it's successful students) along with others of different schools, (event-listings) and (a few stray incidents).(My quite-below-par knowledge of Tamil might have affected me but I won't buy that to a great extent).I didn't have any feasible method to conduct a search in other offline Tamil sources.If you really have a concrete source (rather than vague hand-wavings), or expect those to be found at possible vernacular newspapers, in some date-range, list them and I will be happy to run a narrowed search, in a few day's time. ∯WBG converse 13:32, 29 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 as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 20:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Howard Maurer

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

Subject works in entertainment industry and is the husband of actress Dyanne Thorne. Notability is not inheritage - WP:BIOFAMILY. Sources provided do not establish subject notability. A WP:BEFORE found no WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV of the subject. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENTERTAINER CASSIOPEIA( talk) 07:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 07:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 07:37, 28 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) 17:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Biju Chakkuvarakal

Biju Chakkuvarakal (  | 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 individual with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:BIO. GSS ( talk| c| em) 06:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 06:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 06:40, 28 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Marshmallow Coast

Marshmallow Coast (  | 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 appears not to have a single reliable source and I'm not at all sure it passes Wikipedia:BAND. KJP1 ( talk) 06:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:45, 28 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. Michig ( talk) 08:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Ciara Wilson

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

Up and coming actress. Was deleted by WP:PROD and restored by request at WP:REFUND. Original reason for deletion was "article was written by now banned editor with undeclared COI. More concerning though is that the article subject does not meet WP:NACTOR – at best, we have one possibly "significant role" on a sketch comedy TV series for a now defunct "mobile" TV channel. Other appearances are not "significant", and mostly consist of guest roles. At best, WP:TOOSOON." ~ Anachronist ( talk) 03:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:41, 28 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. ansh 666 20:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Mick Marlow

Mick Marlow (  | 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 seems to me that this articles only assertion of notability is WP:INHERITED from the athletes the subject coached. None of the sources listed even mention the subject. I have found no sources on Google News, Google Books, Newspapers.com, or The British Newspaper Archives (1950-1999). I have also focused a search on local sources in U.K. to no avail. The article was previously declined at Draft:Mick Marlow but was copy/pasted into the mainspace. This is only my second AfD nomination so please understand I have done my best effort at WP:BEFORE. ---  Coffeeand crumbs 03:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:36, 28 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 List of colleges affiliated to the University of Calicut#Sneha College of Architecture. ansh 666 20:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Sneha College of Architecture

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

As seems to be, this article must have been created for promotional purposes. Issues like no citation , no wikilink and being created by an inactive user with just 2 edits has strengthened my doubt. ARKA ( talk) 20:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete After the amendment. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and don't have a single secondary source. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus ( talk to me) 09:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Redirect I agree with Doncram though. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus ( talk to me) 12:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Pinging Jacknstock ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus ( talk to me) 09:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Education in Palakkad district There are two Sneha Colleges in Attayampathy, Palakkad that are part of this group: Sneha College of Teacher Education [91] and Sneha College of Architecture [92], but single-line government entry existence is about as far as the coverage goes in secondary sources that aren't COI sources. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 13:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. There is no way this should be deleted outright. Either:
A) it is substantially a part of University of Calicut and can be (or is already?) mentioned in that article, in which case "Redirect" could be an Alternative to deletion. There is mention at the University of Calicut article that it is an "affiliating"-type university which I don't understand. If it is a university similar to those in the U.S. with which I am more familiar, then note that we don't automatically create or accept articles on each component college or department, but we certainly can mention every component in the university article. Here, there is not yet any substantial development about the college, so there is no apparent need yet to split it out to a separate article.
B) it is substantially independent, in which case the fact that it is, I believe, a degree-granting secondary or above school is paramount in importance. See wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Or if you are in the camp against that and have the ridiculous-in-my-view opinion that a silly RFC which stated something like "Thou shalt not mention wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, then please consider: wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. For various good reasons including countering Wikipedia's Anglo-U.S. bias. -- Doncram ( talk) 05:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The fact we can't tell whether it is affiliated to a university or independent is part of the reason for deletion. There is nothing verifiable about it. All we have is a web site. There are no search results in either English or Malayalam, and I could not find an article in the other language WPs. With policy requiring WP:V and WP:NOR, there is simply nothing to say in an article and nothing to merge. A delete & redirect would also be OK, but that is substantially the same as delete because any editor could go back and create a redirect after deletion. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 19:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect or "Merge" [was "Keep", tentatively], though "Redirect" could also be appropriate depending on facts here (see comment just above). There has been no assertion of fraud or non-existence of this collegiate school that I am aware of, so all the good reasons for wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES apply.-- Doncram ( talk) 05:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
An affiliation with a university doesn't mean it's automatically notable. There are 480 affiliated colleges according to University_of_Calicut#Affiliated_colleges AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks, that link helps, and gets one further to List of colleges affiliated to the University of Calicut, a possible redirect target. Apparently they are all degree-granting with undergraduate or post-grad degrees, so technically in my view they all can be presumed to be Wikipedia-notable, if anyone cares to develop out substantial info justifying split out from briefer listing. But that doesn't mean we have to have separate articles about any of them now. Redirect/merge to the list-article seems best for now. -- Doncram ( talk) 19:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'm sorry, but this looks like a case of laziness. It took me five minutes to add two independent and reliable sources, one from the affiliating university and one from CoA, both showing that the institute exists, is recognized and awards secondary degrees (B. Arch). This is usually enough to keep an article about a degree-granting secondary school. I ask that previous !voters re-consider their stand with this new data. -- Muhandes ( talk) 14:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Those are just directory entries and not significant coverage of the school. If it were just a private vocational school without degrees, it wouldn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. But since it's a degree-granting school and not some certificates, it may get away with existence, but it's closer to a permastub. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 14:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure what notability this is being claimed to establish. See WP:NSCHOOL, which states that "For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria" of WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Even if you're relying on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, it states that independently accredited degree-awarding institutions are usually kept. This is not an independently accredited school, it is dependent on the affiliating university. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES also states that the current notability guidelines for schools and other education institutions are WP:N, WP:NGEO and WP:ORG. All you have shown is that it exists. This is a school that admits at most 40 students per year and has virtually no coverage, just the briefest of mentions in a couple of lists. It is a very long reach to state that this is a "keep." My usual concern with AfDs regarding schools on the Subcontinents is WP:BIAS, but no equivalent school in any country merits an encyclopedia article. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 02:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The term independently accredited may mean different things in different countries. To the best of my understanding, in India all higher education is controlled by the University Grants Commission (UGC). The UGC delegates the power of accreditation to the professional councils. The one for architecture is the Council of Architecture (CoA) which is sourced in the article. Therefore, strictly speaking, this college is independently accredited. Technical colleges can also choose to get additionally assessed and accredited by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), or by the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) in some cases, but I believe this is only mandatory for government funded colleges and is rarely done by small private colleges. Having bothered to say all that, I'm not sure how I got to this discussion and I promised myself to care less, so I will detach myself from this argument. Have fun. -- Muhandes ( talk) 17:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's no clear consensus between Keep and Redirect yet; and it's unclear whether List of colleges affiliated to the University of Calicut or Education in Palakkad district should be the redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:39, 28 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. ansh 666 20:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Johnny Castle (actor)

Johnny Castle (actor) (  | 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 "Unsung Swordsman", are not significant. Being featured in Men (magazine) is an insufficient claim of significance. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:16, 28 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Tee Reel

Tee Reel (  | 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. Lastly, the page links The Love Boat, but the role that the subject played is actually in the parody of The Love Boat. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:14, 28 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 Oval track racing. Sufficient consensus that the article should not be kept, at least as it stands source-wise. Amongst those !voting for redirect there seems consensus for this redirect target. Content remains in edit history to aid in any new article (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 16:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Short track motor racing

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

On top of a multitude of issues, including mostly being a directory in it's current form, it has absolutely no sources whatsoever. Violates WP:V and WP:NOR. The article Oval track racing already contains ample info on the subject in it's prose. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 18:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I would merge it into oval track racing. -- Mark McWire ( talk) 19:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The problem with that is the part of the article that isn't a list (which already exists at Oval track racing) is unreferenced original research. I'm honestly not sure how that lead has managed to survive since 2004 mostly intact. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 19:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The topic is so special, the article was probably never really read by anyone. I'm just a list freak, and so I removed the list duplicates to other articles some time ago. The topic itself does not interest me so much. -- Mark McWire ( talk) 20:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect into oval track racing. I see little content of value and especially the outdated directory of short tracks. No prejudice against anyone who would want to create a reliably sourced+cited article on this topic but it would need to start from scratch. A short track is a subset of oval track racing - the smallest of oval track (1 mile / 1.6km and shorter). Royal broil 00:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
comment. I pretty much agree. I had originally wanted to work on the article, but I quickly realized that WP:TNT is likely the best option. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 01:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
All of which that *isn't* WP:OR can be found at Oval track racing. No need to Fork the article. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 14:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 28 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 Senate election in Arkansas, 2008. I would delete, but content has been merged over to the election, so it's best to maintain attribution here. ansh 666 20:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Rebekah Kennedy

Rebekah Kennedy (  | 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 page should be deleted due to the subject of the biography having never held a political office in her life and having been out of politics for nearly a decade. The figure is not a national figure nor is she well known within Arkansas anymore. There is nothing notable about her, and given this, the WP:N would grant that this article should be deleted. Redditaddict69 ( talk) 04:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_July_28&oldid=1142616107"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE