WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION LOG 2018 NOVEMBER 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 November	11 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Ibukun Jegede

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

Article has been tagged for notability since 2011. Subject does not appear notable as a businessperson or model – none of their companies has a Wikipedia article and I am not convinced that their modelling achievements count as "well-known and significant" awards or honours as specified by WP:ANYBIO. Nor do they appear to satisfy WP:NMODEL. The most in-depth sources currently cited in the article are two interviews with minor and/or regional news outlets (the Nottingham Post interview is a dead link but can still be accessed via archive.org). My Google search for "Ibukun Jegede" turned up 84 results, the most prominent of which were the subject's own websites, LinkedIn, YouTube, other social media and similar interviews. The article creator seems to have a strong COI as well: [1]. Super Mario Man ( Talk) 13:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete: it's either an autobiography or a paid editing puff piece for a non-notable individual, trying to use Wikipedia to become notable. I went through the article a couple of days ago, removing unsourced puffery and exaggerations (including the self-awarded title "Dr."; see page history), and found that the only claim in the article that was resonably reliably sourced was about having received a minor modelling award, everything else in the article was, if sourced at all, sourced only to the subject's own websites and/or interviews (without editorial comments) of the subject, i.e. to the subject himself. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 23:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete a non-notable model. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. Completely fails WP:BASIC. Sources provided lacks editorial control, she does not appear notable nor meet any of the criteria’s per WP:MODEL.

- TESH | Is Nutin 14:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soltesh ( talk • 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. Given the total lack of references, delete is a slam-dunk, even with the minimal discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Hifiklub

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

No external references at all. Clearly violates WP:BLP. Major contributor is obviously an associate. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete due to total lack of sources and improper formatting; the entry reads more like promotional material than a descriptive article.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 23:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Pumpkin tomato

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

PROD'd by me yesterday, de-PROD'd by creator shortly after.

Original PROD reasoning: I just cannot find any indication that these are even a thing, let alone a notable thing. I tried searching "pumpkin" in the referenced book ( [2]) but it doesn't use the word to refer to a tomato variety. Google has lots of noise from recipes that use pumpkin and tomato, but even adding +Peru, +variety, or +cultivar didn't produce anything (even trivial hits).

De-PROD edit summary was: People today think everything is recorded neatly online and if Google doesn't show you the answer in the first 10 links then it doesn't exist. Proposed deletion is absurd. Read the book.

Wonderfully touchy and even misses the fact that I did check the book as best as possible. Since the author didn't provide a page number in their citation, one has to resort to searching the book electronically, which I did, and found nothing. Neither my local library nor my larger regional library owns the book or I'd have gone to get it just to be a completionist.

In the interests of being nice and thorough before taking this to XfD, I did some extra checking this morning, and again, I found basically nothing to support the idea that this is an encyclopedically notable variety of tomatoes. There's absolutely nothing on the following databases or collections of plant/tomato varieties: Rutgers NJAES, Plant variety database - European Commission, University of Saskatchewan Vegetable Program database, Plants for a Future, and Cornell's Vegetable Varieties for Gardeners. The only database with an entry for this variety is Garden.org, but the edit links confirm that it's user-generated, so we can't trust it.

Sadly, not a lot of tomato-focused books are available for preview on Google or Amazon, but the one I could check, Epic Tomatoes, doesn't include it.

I ran the scientific name given on Garden.org ("Solanum lycopersicum 'Pumpkin'") through Google and didn't get any useful results either. Hell, I even checked Newspapers.com, Taylor and Francis, JSTOR, and Highbeam, just because they're there, and again, it's all noise from recipe books, gardening tips, or scientific studies that mention the pumpkin and the tomato as separate plants but next to one another in the text. I'd be delighted to check anything else anyone can suggest but at this stage I'm quite out of ideas. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 00:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 00:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete I can't find anything either. And while the editor is correct that online presence of sources is not required, if the term per se is entirely absent online, and only a single purported book ever names it, then that is not sufficient for verifiability or demonstration of commonality of the term. There seems to be any number of cultivars that look like something that had better remained inside of a heifer, and I suspect that many are subject to unofficial names and/or subdivisions. As with dog races, not all of these are suited for inclusion in WP. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 10:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability. PMC has demonstrated that verifiability is not achieved with the content in this article. I note that the Wikidata page ( w:wikidata:Q7259857) lists pumpkin tomato as an instance of a "hoax". Deli nk ( talk) 23:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Even with the sources mentioned by Frank C. Muller below, the article content remains unverified and notability is definitely not established. Deli nk ( talk) 11:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. ~~Lack of sources points to this being a hoax. Article was created on April Fools' day 2012.~~ According to TinEye], a version of the image uploaded by the article creator has been here since August 17 2011. Plantdrew ( talk) 00:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

It appears that pumpkin tomatoes exist per Frank C. Müller's links below, but notability isn't established. I'm still concerned about the apparent copyright violation with the photo. And although valid articles may be created on April 1st, there are some pretty fishy statements in the article. "up to the size of a pumpkin"; very doubtful unless we're talking about smaller than usual pumpkins ( world record tomato is 3.9 kg, and pumpkins being hollow will be larger than a tomato of the same weight). "mixed up with peppers due to their size and the characteristic nitrogen stripes which cause the characteristic "pumpkin" ribs"; ribs or not, it's pretty hard to mix up a tomato with a pepper. And what the hell are "nitrogen stripes"? Plantdrew ( talk) 19:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. I couldn't find/confirm a suitable reference. The photo appears to be Marmande tomatoes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. There are at least two serious online-sources:
- http://www.tomaten-atlas.de/sorten/p/1920-pumpkin
- http://tatianastomatobase.com/wiki/Pumpkin

-- Frank C. Müller ( talk) 16:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Well, that confirms that they exist, but Tomaten-Atlas is getting their photos from Tatiana's Tomatobase, and Tatiana's site is a Wiki. There's still a dearth of reliable sources supporting notability of these tomatoes. Plantdrew ( talk) 19:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A10). Alexf^(talk) 16:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Bond 25 (film 2019)

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

Production of the movie didn't start (it won't start until 2019) so its WP:TOOSOON. A Draft already exits and was somewhat recently rejected at AFC. JC7V -talk 23:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Also note that I didn't move it into draft space since a draft already exists under the title. I can't find any CSD categories for it (A10 only applies to duplicate articles in main space). I can't PROD it because if they add sources that are like the ones from the rejected draft and thus remove the PROD tag, it will have to be brought here anyway since it fails WP:TOOSOON (per my nom statement). AFD seems the best option (and it can be deleted before a week if its a Speedy Delete consensus) JC7V -talk 23:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 23:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete, fails WP:NFF. We have a redirect from Bond 25 already, and we have had Draft:Bond 25 for a few years. The DAB is atypical, it would, if needed, be Bond 25 (film) (which currently is also a redirect) or Bond 25 (2019 film) (also R). Sam Sailor 23:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Speedy? It's an unsourced one-liner, that contradicts itself. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete as WP:TOOSOON Atlantic306 ( talk) 14:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Disappearance of Arianna Fitts

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

Does not fulfill notability criteria based on the relative lack of non-local coverage I could find online. Natureium ( talk) 22:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 00:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 00:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 00:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep if non-local sources can be found and added. TH1980 ( talk) 04:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep - For this time. I see some sources that are acceptable. WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk) 13:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:HEY, I added non-local and recent coverage. this 2016 CRIME has ONGOING, GEOSCOPE, and INDEPTH. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep. Seems to have sufficient coverage for NCRIME. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply
- They are still all local sources, save for the federal database, which has no bearing on significance/notability. Natureium ( talk) 15:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  - Untrue. I added non-local sources on the 12th ( papers in Washington D.C. and Los Angeles,). I even noted it above. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:NCRIME. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Suitsurmesur

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

Promotion only article. The only source is the company's website (not in itself disqualifying), and it is solely focused on the advantages the company poses, including a comparison to another company. There is no evidence of notability (see WP:ORGCRIT for criteria) DannyS712 ( talk) 22:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 00:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 00:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 00:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. A thorough web search doesn't show anything at all that would help constitute notability; all it is is Instagram, Twitter, official websites, and a single Wikia article, nothing reliable. This could've almost been A7d, as the article does not contain a claim of significance, and like I mentioned, no good sources can be found; but I guess it's better to be on the safe side and discuss it.-- SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. How this didn't get WP:G11'd, I have no clue. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply

TurnKey Vacation Rentals

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

Created by a WP:SPA. Fails WP:NCORP. Tagged for improvement for two years. All the references are to routine coverage of funding announcements and low-quality articles in industry-specific publications. My own searching failed to find anything better; lots of mentions in social networking, directory-style listings in business publications, PR sites and the like. The only two things I found that looked remotely interesting were PhocusWire which turned out to be a spamvertisement interview, and Markets Insider which turned out to be off the PR newswire. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. The article has been tagged with This article contains content that is written like an advertisement for two years, but I fail to see any content in it that's not written like an advertisement. Cleaning it up would leave nothing. Bishonen | talk 03:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC). reply
Delete, advert. Szzuk ( talk) 08:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator (DGG). (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 18:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

99designs

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

~~Not notable. The references are either press releases or mere notices.~~ Previously deleted via speedy A7/ DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

a) The decision on the link provided to the right was "Speedy Keep" Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/99designs, not Speedy Delete. Is there some missing discussion? b) Article was approved from AfC just a few days ago by John from Idegon and Araractic; c) There are no press releases cited; d) For a few of the articles and books that go beyond mere notices, see, for example: this, this and this, this, this, this, this, this, this; e) "Few start-ups have the honour of saying they inspired a rebellion."^[1] I believe establishing notability could greatly benefit by a discussion of the "NO!SPEC" protest movement started by graphic designers against the company because losers of design contests don't get paid. I have suggested language and sources here: Talk:99designs#Request_Edit BC1278 ( talk) f) For a longer version, see [3] 18:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278 reply

References

^ Sharma, Mahesh (2012-08-31). "99 problems but a design ain't one | ZDNet". ZDNet. Retrieved 2018-07-26.

Note: I have notified everyone (pro and con), here Talk:99designs#AfD_Discussion from the Teahouse and notability discussions of the past few days. BC1278 ( talk) 20:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278 reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Agree with nom. Fails sourcing for WP:NORG even the stuff that looks like in depth independent coverage like Pando is actually not independent. It reports that the company received $35 million from Accel partners and when you look at the about page [4] you discover that Accel is the 2nd biggest stake holders in Pando. And I think we all know what value Forbes and techcrunch have as RS for notability. Dom from Paris ( talk) 21:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep - responding to ping. There's sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability. The Forbes piece is a staff written article, not a guest "contributor" which I think is what causes concern elsewhere. The Sydney Herald and Fast Company pieces are also good. I read and use Techcrunch a lot - it's quite reliable. Based on existing sourcing, the company meets WP:GNG. And now that the fluff has been culled, it read a lot better. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment I have just read the talk page and pinging editors that worked on getting the draft accepted looks very much like WP:CANVASSING to me. Knowing full well they were involved in the article finding itself in mainspace seems a little bit like vote stacking because this nomination could be seen as a criticism of their judgement (which it actually isn't as a lot of accepted AFC get deleted and this is notmal) and I don't see the justification for it. Dom from Paris ( talk) 22:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I may be wrong but the editor that first declined the submission was forgotten in the pinging. Seems a shame. Dom from Paris ( talk) 22:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

And of course all of those who so kindly came to the aide of the article creator at the teahouse were working pro bono for both the company and the creator to ensure their promotional presence on wikipedia because if it were not for promotional purposes they would not have paid for the edits. Dom from Paris ( talk) 09:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Indeed, and that is why I am not spending any more of my time on this article. However, your comments don't have much to do with notability.~ Araratic | talk 09:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; sourcing is in passing, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. The first AfD took place in 2014, while NCORP has been significantly tightened since then. The page does not meet it at this time. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, notifications at Talk:99designs#AfD_Discussion does look like canvassing and advocacy on behalf of a paid article. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete; as it does not meet WP:CORP. Kierzek ( talk) 00:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep. Based on references shown to me on the article talk page: smh.com.au, gbooks and gbooks, Forbes, pando, fast company, afr.com, mumbreslla, zdnet), I think there are enough substantial 3rd party independent published reliable sources for notability---the one I regardds most useful is the one from zdnet. . I cannot actually withdraw the afd, as others have commented for deletion. I urge them to reconsider. the appropriate step is to add the references to the article as it stands in mainspace--there is a draft at AfC, but it would be clearer to improve the actual article., DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply
DGG I'm confused. It looks like you nominated this article because it had been speedily deleted, even though it hadn't, and now you're voting keep. Wouldn't that be the same as withdrawing the nomination? Am I reading this wrong? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

It was speedy kept at AfD in 2014, then sometime speedy deleted, then recreated in July 2018 I believe. Not sure though how an article can be speedy deleted after it was speedy kept at AfD. Aoziwe ( talk) 04:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

It was withdrawn by the nom so maybe the deleting admin felt that they could speedy delete after that. Best to ask them I suppose. Dom from Paris ( talk) 06:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep Seems to me quite sufficient WP:NEXIST to satisfy GNG. Aoziwe ( talk) 05:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep because the links in the article, in comments above, and in previous discussions linked above, establish by verifiable evidence that there is significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. It thus meets WP:ORGCRIT, WP:GNG and the alternate critera. Levivich ( talk) 22:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep There is certainly significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources (eg The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian Financial Review, and the Springer and Routledge publications). Meets WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 17:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply

South Texas Dental

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

non notable: every one of the references is a mere notice or a press release. Local business journals are not a RS for notability ---the purpose of their very existence is to publlish press releases. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

delete - no real claim to notability. Smallbones_(
smalltalk) 20:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment - Sadly I have no grounds to oppose the deletion. The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Companies/Archive_3#When a company which has few reliable sources about it takes over the operations of another company, what to do? says it all. WhisperToMe ( talk) 13:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Hiyai

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources except this interview piece by TOI and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS ( talk| c| em) 08:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 08:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 08:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - I would agree that it needs more than one RS Spiderone 09:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Angelika Kallio

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

Once again, no reliable sources given to verify any statements made about her career. Probably, possibly, contains OR too. WP:NMODEL Trillfendi ( talk) 18:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep Once again, WP:N says that notability is not based on the state of sourcing in the article. Arguably the mid-1990s coverage of the subject as a prominent victim of a scam targeting fashion models might not be sufficient on its own. But the subject has received plenty of coverage as part of a group of 1990s Finnish models called (by The Sunday Times in 1999) the "Finnish mafia", and even some coverage for her transition to a real estate career. A search of Finnish-language sources is also fruitful. Article could use some improvement, but that's not a reason to delete. Added two sources to the article to confirm some personal data. Bakazaka ( talk) 20:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Bakazaka I never said it was about sources in the article. (Especially being that the NYT one wasn’t even there. I said that in my “before” I wasn’t able to find more reliable sources to establish notability (for modeling at the very least), therefore I proposed deletion. Trillfendi ( talk) 20:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep About half of the article is (and was from the very beginning) sourced to a May 2010 issue of the Finnish Elle, which I believe is a reliable source so I don't see a big problem with unverified statements. The height of her career was probably pre-Internet so it's not that easy to find online sources, but she never disappeared from the public eye, and for example a major newspaper reported her breakup from her fiancé in 2015 [5]. Last year she had a cover story in a women's magazine (online excerpt). In 2005 the biggest Finnish newspaper reviewed her autobiography (paywall) and described her as "maybe the most globally successful model from Finland". - kyykaarme ( talk) 11:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep. Per kyykaarme. / Julle ( talk) 23:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Nessly

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

I am not convinced this artist passes per WP:BAND. He's got a record deal, but not two albums. In fact he's got no albums at all. There's coverage of him signing and doing a few other things, but if those few things make him pass the GNG then we have effectively hollowed out NBAND, since everyone always gets press coverage, in the genre and gossip magazines, long before they have two albums on a notable label. Drmies ( talk) 16:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 00:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

That's only one criterion - most notable musicians are notable by other criteria first. Peter James ( talk) 19:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Basically WP:TOOSOON. There are a few run-of-the-mill promotional/Interview type things out there not cited in the article (billboard.com, HotHiphotnews) that reflect a marketing effort rather than significant, independent coverage. One digital download album with a genuine label is the only thing he has done that is not self-distributed. Give it time to get chart activity, reviews or 3rd party coverage. So far there is nothing. FWIW, his social media following is pretty modest for someone hoping to claim notability. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 22:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. No coverage to pass WP:GNG. Just someone doing their job. Not encyclopedic due to achievements (yet). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 09:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Oliver John (wrestler)

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

Non notable wrestler. Fails WP:GNG, all sources are WP:ROUTINE Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete no notable wrestlers. Sources are routine. I just remember him losing against the debutant Sheamus in ECW -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 16:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply

More details added. He also Wrestled against Chuck Palumbo and The Highlanders in the WWE, as well as several big names from Mexico such as Rey Mysterio Sr La Parka and Blue Demon, Jr -- ldeffinbaugh ( talk) 11:10, 24 October 2018 (EST)

@ Ldeffinbaugh: Everything you have added are from WP:PRIMARY sources. Nothing to support WP:GNG, which from what I can tell is because there is noting out there to support GNG. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 17:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Galatz: I did have a New York Times article posted, that someone removed, I will re-add it. - ldeffinbaugh ( talk) 03:08, 24 October 2018 (EST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete I see no significant independent coverage to show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa ( talk) 19:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep This is well structured and the references are in line with others in American male professional wrestlers. I hear the WP:PRIMARY argument but look at the rest of them in category.-- JAMillerKC ( talk) 17:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

WP:OSE is not enough to show notability. Would you please show me the significant independent coverage of him in reliable sources that support the claim of notability? Papaursa ( talk) 18:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Fair point, but I'm saying there needs to be consistency and that would require a major clean up of others in the category.-- JAMillerKC ( talk) 15:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comparing this to several other posts, such as Colby Corino who is known due to his father and his appearances in TNA and ROH but does not meet the WP:Primary, there are more references and history for West Coast promotions as well as Mexican promotions for him then the example listed.- ldeffinbaugh ( talk) 19:45, 13 November 2018 (EST)

Sorry, but I'm not really a pro wrestling aficionado. Correct if I'm wrong, but it seems like the arguments for keeping this article are that other articles exist that are no better or even worse. I'm just trying to judge this article on its own merits. I have no objection to keeping it if someone can show the references that would meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 01:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I can post them on here too like I did on the page. NBC Bay Area https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/Pro-Wrestling-Revolution-Academy-Pro-Wrestling-Dreams-Start-Inside-San-Jose-Warehouse-270540651.html?fbclid=IwAR2JyTEvkDKfmUS0cSQ3m74ba50wrOqMv69CP0rJVPn32zvmBoeWBL1HNEE

New Your Times Editorial http://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/opinion/border-patrol-body-slam.html - ldeffinbaugh (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2018 (EST)

Thank you, but neither of those sources provide significant coverage of Oliver John--there's a passing mention in the NYT and he's not mentioned at all in the San Jose local piece. Papaursa ( talk) 01:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

http://slam.canoe.com/Slam/Wrestling/2008/07/11/6134906.html - ldeffinbaugh (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2018 (EST)

Delete It fails WP:GNG even after the new sources provided here. LM2000 ( talk) 12:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. After two full relistings and then some, no consensus for a particular outcome has transpired herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Never Let Me Down (Kanye West song)

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

Two editors just hit the 3RR rule with this one. One says fails, WP:NSONG/ WP:GNG and the other disagrees. Should it be deleted, kept as a article or a redirect. I have no opinion either way. Richhoncho ( talk) 09:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Merge to The College Dropout - it does not pass WP:NSONG and I'm surprised the content isn't already in the album article. – The Grid ( talk) 17:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge to The College Dropout per above. Aoba47 ( talk) 05:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Striking vote due to the expansion of the article. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Don't merge to The College Dropout - I have further improved this article to the point where it clearly holds its own, since it's over 11000 bytes in size now. It did not chart but doesn't need to for a Wiki and the sources are all reliable - see WP:NSONG to understand why I'm correct. -- Kyle Peake ( talk) 07:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm striking out this vote because of the other one below by you. – The Grid ( talk) 20:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Don't merge to The College Dropout per above. -- ClocksGoBack ( talk) 09:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply

This is the sole edit by this user. I smell a 'sock or meat puppet. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I admit to using an alternative account with the above user and I am very sorry, promise never to do so again.-- Kyle Peake ( talk) 16:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:HEY. I believe sufficient sourcing now exists to demonstrate that NSONG has been satisfied (note its the base paragraph satisfied, not any of the specific guiding "may" points). My thanks to Kyle Peake for his work Nosebagbear ( talk) 23:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge to The College Dropout. The references are to reviews of this album rather than the song, so no independent notability. And just because an article is long does NOT mean it should be kept regardless of notability. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep If you look throughout, it is not just a long article with The College Dropout reviews as references. There are many sources cited for the song outside of album reviews and even if you do use that as a debate to merge it, the reviews go into more detail about the song then should be listed on the album, especially the information about Jay's appearance in a negative light. Kyle Peake ( talk)
Redirect to the album as per WP:NSONG. Simply doesn't meet the notability requirements. Is notable as part of the album, but that's all, should be covered there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Struck Sock Vote - for clarity I've struck the above sock vote (I came here to point it out and then realised it was identified and admitted) Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
~~Keep~~ per WP:NSONG, where it says: "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries or reviews." The article certainly meets this criteria and I know it says 'probably', but the article has enough independent sources to certify it as having notability. -- Kyle Peake ( talk) 09:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Dude, you can't !vote more than once. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep for me this is slightly trivial, but the depth of coverage and encyclopedic content is to a good standard and it isn't something that is offending anyone. As this is off his debut album and also features Jay-Z, means this is a fairly notable track. FelixFLB ( talk) 16:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Billboard ranking it on a subjective list yet not charting it tells you everything you need to know. Every song by a popular artist isn’t notable. This wasn’t even a single. Trillfendi ( talk) 04:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was: consensus is keep for the band article to be retained, and no consensus regarding the three album articles. This closure will be properly reflected on the respective article talk pages with the {{ Old AfD multi}} template, denoting a keep result occurrent for the band article and no consensus for the album articles. Furthermore, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination for the album articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply

London (heavy metal band)

(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)

(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)

Poorly referenced article about a band, whose only properly verifiable claim of notability is the number of albums they released. But there are no properly footnoted reliable source references here at all, and instead there's just a contextless linkfarm of external links to primary sources and Q&A interviews in which band members are talking about themselves. These are not notability-supporting sources for the purposes of properly referencing a WP:NMUSIC pass, but all I can find anywhere else is a short biographical blurb on AllMusic, which isn't very substantive and fails to verify large chunks of this article's content — so it certainly gets them off the starting blocks, but isn't enough to get them past the finish line all by itself as the only valid source in play. I'm also bundling their three albums, as none of them has a strong enough notability claim to survive WP:NALBUMS even if the band fails NMUSIC.
And for an example of the reason why much better referencing than this is required, consider that the infobox, the "band members" section of the article body and the navbox are making three wildly different and sometimes contradictory sets of claims about who is or was ever actually a member of the band in the first place — so we would need much stronger verification of who is or was really a band member, as opposed to merely a guest or session musician, before we could deem them as passing NMUSIC #6 for having two or more independently notable members.
As always, NMUSIC does not exempt a band from having to have reliable source coverage just because of what the article says — passing NMUSIC also depends on how well the article references what it says, but none of the "references" here are cutting it at all and I can't find nearly enough better ones. Bearcat ( talk) 17:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 14:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. Six notable members satisfies WP:NMUSIC criterion 6, album releases satisfy criterion 5, and there's enough coverage in books such as Thierry Aznar's Hard rock & Heavy metal : 40 années de purgatoire Tome 2, Martin Popoff's The Big Book of Hair Metal, plus the Allmusic coverage, and [6], The Guardian, LA Weekly, etc. to satisfy criterion 1 and the GNG. -- Michig ( talk) 08:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

GNG, as always, does not just uncritically accept every source that exists, but still evaluates the range, depth and quality of a source before it counts. The new links you've provided are (1) an unbylined piece, which reads suspiciously more like a press release from the band's management company than it does like journalism, on an unreliable source, (2) a short blurb in a listicle, in which everything it says about the band is a direct quote from the band leader himself, and (3) local coverage in the local alt-weekly — and The Big Book of Hair Metal just briefly namechecks their existence a couple of times while failing to have any substantive content about them at all, while the sole appearance of the word "London" anywhere in Hard rock & Heavy metal : 40 années de purgatoire Tome 2 is "London Boys" as a Johnny Thunders song title, not a mention of any glam rock band from Los Angeles. That doesn't add up to a GNG pass.
As for the "six notable members", one of those six (Chris Sanders) is up for deletion as not being genuinely notable at all, and we still don't have satisfactory reliable source verification that four of the other five were ever really band members at all — the only source which actually says anything at all about any of those four is the one that just soundbites the current bandleader's own self-published claims without fact-checking them, even the AllMusic profile still doesn't mention most of them at all, and none of them actually appear on even one of the band's albums. So no, we still don't have adequate verification of "notable band members" for the purposes of criterion 6 — we merely have unverified claims that this band had a revolving door of notable members doing very brief stints in the band before they had ever accomplished anything that would pass any other NMUSIC criterion. Lizzie Grey remains the only member whose role in the band is properly verified as substantive.
Which still leaves us with just "the number of albums they released" — and even that criterion requires reliable source coverage, such as album reviews, about the albums, and is not automatically passed just because two or more album titles have been listed. Even the AllMusic profile, which is still the only GNG-worthy source that has been found here so far, fails to verify two of the three albums — it includes only Non-Stop Rock in the band's discography, not either of the other two. Bearcat ( talk) 16:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Here's the Google Books results for London in Aznar's book: [7]. Clearly not just a mention of an unrelated Johnny Thunders song. Non-Stop Rock was released on Roadrunner Records, Playa Del Rock was released on Noise International, and The Metal Years was released on Cleopatra Records imprint Deadline - these are easily verifiable, and are sufficient to satisfy WP:NMUSIC. Regarding the members, the Aznar book confirms the membership of Lizzie Grey, Izzy Stradlin (as does this), Nikki Six, and even Slash. Here's an article from Spin confirming that members included Blackie Lawless, Fred Coury, Nikki Six, Izzy Stradlin, Slash, and Steve Adler. Here's another book source. -- Michig ( talk) 17:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

The "number of albums" test still requires album reviews in real reliable sources, not just technical primary source verification of album existence. And even if you can verify the membership of notable musicians better than the article had verified them at the time, the fact still remains that all but Grey were already out of the band again by the time they ever actually accomplished anything — which makes their membership trivia, not substantive evidence of band notability. If a band didn't have two or more notable members while doing anything that passed any other notability criterion, then the fact that people who weren't yet notable at the time, but subsequently became notable for other reasons afterward, did brief stints in the band early in their careers but were already gone by the time the band accomplished anything at all, is not convincing evidence of the band's notability. Bearcat ( talk) 17:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

We need to be able to verify that one or more criteria of a notability guideline is met, nothing more. -- Michig ( talk) 17:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep the Band - I have great respect for the nominator, but his rationale in the nomination and previous comments shows undue dismissal of the WP:NEXIST and WP:NOTCLEANUP standards. The current article is indeed a sloppy unverified mess and it even has some internal contradictions. But those are reasons to improve, not delete. London is well-known in the metal world, because even though they accomplished little under their own name, they were an early stop for several musicians who became more famous in other bands later. They have attracted plenty of mainstream coverage for that reason, as a historical item, and that bestows notability just as much as number of albums and the other things being argued above. Michig has delivered plenty of reliable and significant sources to indicate the band's historical importance. Here are some more: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. They were also profiled quite prominently in the film The Decline of Western Civilization Part II: The Metal Years, as can be verified in many reliable sources that discuss the film or several of the sources about the band that have already been linked by Michig and myself. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 18:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Wait on the Albums - Meanwhile I am undecided on the albums that have been included in the nomination, and recommend that those AfDs be split out and considered separately. I have found reviews for each of them, but whether those are reliable/significant should be the topic of separate discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 18:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep the band: plenty of sources mentioned by the two editors above. Nikki Sixx talks in the Motley Crue autobiography The Dirt about forming London with Lizzie Grey, Dane Rage and Nigel Benjamin after he and Grey had been kicked out of Sister. The albums are another matter and should be considered separately. Richard3120 ( talk) 19:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Kylie Bisutti

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

Now this is what I’m talking about in the “But she was in the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show!” camp—and this is an extreme example. This is just ridiculous. You mean to tell me, the year Adriana Lima was pregnant they decided to do a model search to replace her for that show; this girl gets the spot, what any model in the world would consider the Golden Ticket to launch a modeling career from, then promptly retires from lingerie modeling because it conflicts with her religious beliefs. She has not done one modeling job to speak of yet writes a memoir about that one-off Victoria’s Secret stint and retiring to Montana. Instead of modeling she used that to milk some money out of this publicity stunt. It goes without saying that is no WP:NMODEL. Delete this. (Side note:Daily Mail and Fox News are not reliable sources) Trillfendi ( talk) 17:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. This nomination seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. However, the subject easily passes WP:GNG - there is plenty of significant coverage in reliable soruces (as well as unreliable ones). St Anselm ( talk) 19:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

As [[User:StAnselm], states, Nom, who writes many articles on fashion models, appears to have substituted a personal opinion, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, for a WP:BEFORE search. Had Nom looked, he might have noticed that massive media coverage of Bisutti and the book she wrote. In addition, the question of whether Bisutti passes WP:MODEL is irrelevant because she passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:AUTHOR. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment it’s not that “I don’t like it”, it just doesn’t make sense to me that a “model” who did one job then retired then wrote a book to milk the situation even after Victoria’s Secret said she never had a contract with them even has an article. It’s simply an WP:NMODEL case. And it’s not like we can rewrite it for her to be notable as WP:NAUTHOR because from what I could find she certainly doesn’t meet that criteria (and it wasn’t even a bestseller). This article is promotional at most. Trillfendi ( talk) 20:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment Also on top that she says “I’m no Angel” (a slogan other models and brands have also said when VS shuts them out) which furthers proves my point about this. Being an Angel is notability without question; not being an Angel isn’t notability in this case. The Angels that year were Adriana, Marisa Miller, Behati Prinsloo, Karolina Kurkova, Miranda Kerr, Heidi Klum, and Alessandra Ambrosio — all Kylie Bisutti did was participate in a contest (which wouldn’t even have happened had Adriana Lima not been on maternity leave). If this was Ford Supermodel of the World or Elite Model Look I wouldn’t have proposed this. Trillfendi ( talk) 20:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete a non-notable model. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep per massive amount of coverage of Bisutti and her book [13] major publications, major TV network interviews. Passes WP:AUTHOR. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment Writing one memoir about a publicity stunt then not writing ever again makes one a WP:AUTHOR now? Trillfendi ( talk) 00:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

She passes WP:GNG because of what comes up when you click "News" on searchbar at top of this page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

E.M.Gregory She meets this criteria?:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museum.

Miley Cyrus wrote a memoir at 16 that got even more coverage (Los Angeles Times, Hollywood Reporter, Billboard, Sydney Morning Herald etc.) is she a WP:AUTHOR? Kendall and Kylie Jenner wrote a novel... are they classidied as authors? I just can’t see the rationale. Trillfendi ( talk) 00:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

WP:OTHERSTUFF.

Nom, one book can be enough to pass WP:AUTHOR#3 "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." But it is not the book alone tha tmakes her notable, it is the many news, feature, profile articles and book reviews in major media over the years that carry her past WP:GNG. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. She has authored a second book and as been mentioned previously has appeared in various RS magazines and shows. I'd argue that part of her notability is the fact that she turned away from a potentially successful long-term modeling career for her faith, a curiosity that helped fuel the articles and interviews. I'll volunteer to help clean up the sourcing if the article survives the AfD. LovelyLillith ( talk) 21:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

User:LovelyLillith, It will almost certainly survive AfD, Nom has offered no policy based reason for deletion and the available sourcing is extremely strong. Proper sourcing and other improvements may persuade Nom to change his opinion. But even it it does not, a good article is a always a good thing. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. There is only one "keep" opinion that makes an actual argument. Sandstein 12:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Ebrahim Bagheri

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

Non notable. Drako ( talk) 16:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment There is no delete rationale on this page, and it cant be updated. scope_creep ( talk) 08:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Let's go through WP:ACADEMIC!

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

We have a total of 2969 citations, h-index 22, and one paper with 1374 citations ( see here)

Note that he is neither first nor last author of the one highly cited paper. -- Oisguad ( talk) 20:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC) reply

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

He has two awards list:

IBM faculty fellow: only at the institutional level

PEO medal: still not national level, but fairly prestigious; one medal per category per year awarded across the whole province.

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).

Not that I can tell

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

Not demonstrated

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).

He is a Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair, not at all uncommon.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

Not demonstrated

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

Not demonstrated

8. The person is or has been head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

Not demonstrated

9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

Nope

Overall, the lack of any coverage of this academic makes it hard to demonstrate notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenKuykendall ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment An h-index of 22 is respectable. In some fields (e.g., pure mathematics), I'd consider that by itself a pass of WP:PROF#C1. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep WP:PROF is based on showing that a person is influential in their field.(theo ther criteria are m ostly just shorthand for this--meeting any one is sufficient) For people in fields where this is judged by journal articles--or in some fields, like electronic engineering and computer science--by conference proceedings, this is shown by highly cited jouranal article.s The number of citations depends on the field, and a paper with over 1000 is enough for notability in any field whatsoever (total number of citations or h factor judges productivity, not excellences, and is not even worth mentioning. People are judged by their best work--in all fields. h=22 can mean 22 papers with 22 citations each, or 21 with 22 citations and 1 with a thousand. There's quite a difference. Painters are judged by their best work that gets into major museums, athletes by their best performance, politicians by their highest offices. No amount of mediocre work makes for notability. Excellent work as judged by the standards of the field is. DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig ( talk) 18:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep Passes WP:NPROF. scope_creep ( talk) 12:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk ( talk) 19:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. Just read the article. It says he has made a nice little career, nothing else. -- Oisguad ( talk) 20:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment. I'm still not convinced that his single highly-cited paper is sufficient for notability. I'll admit that >1000 citations is a ton. But there are still a number of issues. To start, this line of work is not mentioned in his article. If this paper has had such a large impact in the field, shouldn't his article have something to say about it? Further, if this paper establishes Bagheri's notability, it should do the same for his co-authors. But they do not have articles. Now, neither of this issues necessarily means we should delete this page. But I think we need to look a little further into this paper and see why it has so many citations. Has it really made significant impact in this scholarly discipline or is it just routinely cited when other researchers use the same data set?
On an unrelated note, an IP editor has added the text "Both Canada Research Chair and NSERC Industrial Chair appointments are competitive and highly prestigious national appointments made by the Government of Canada. At the time of appointment, Dr. Bagheri was among only another 13 faculty members in Canada to concurrently hold both national chairs." to the article since the AfD opened. This is both unsourced and unconventional claim to fame. I am still unconvinced that either chair is an notable position, and I don't see how holding both at the same time is more notable. BenKuykendall ( talk) 20:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment

Oisguad You don't have an applicable delete rationale, that is counted by the closing admin, as it doesn't consider policy. The only thing that count here is h-index. It is peer reviewed metric and as such it makes the subject notable.

Just write four papers per year, in each of your papers cite all your preceding papers, and after five years you have h=20. For good reasons our policy does not define a threshold h value that suffices to make an academic notable. I have h>20 myself without being notable at all. -- Oisguad ( talk) 10:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

BenKuykendall, a chair within an Learned society is an elected position, which means your peer group consider you the most brilliant amongst that peer group, and as result they elect you into a chair. You must be elected into the learned society first, so it takes an enormous of skill and talent, raw intelligence to reach a chair. It is an exceedingly high standard of intellect, so that your at the top of that particular speciality. It is designed in that manner, to ensure that the person who holds it, is the very best. So holding two chairs, means that person is worth an article, more so.

That fact his work is not mentioned is a problem for WP, as the person who is writing the article, perhaps doesn't understand the work of the subject. Its weakness and a strength of the WP model but in time it will be added in.

There is no independent coverage of his work. No review paper that summarizes his achievements in understandable terms. -- Oisguad ( talk) 10:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

The fact his co-authors are not on here, means the articles are not yet written. Perhaps you can write them. As regards the single paper. Einstein wrote two papers, and changed the whole of the scientific world. That one paper could be incandescent, brilliant and his peer group certainly think so. scope_creep ( talk) 09:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Scope creep: Bagheri is not a fellow of the IEEE, just a senior member. Sure, this is a position within a learned society, but not a highly prestigious one, as is required for WP:ACADEMIC:3. His "chairs" are not elected positions, rather, it just says he is among the hundreds of academics funded by the NSERC. Finally, on his paper, I agree with Oisguad: if his paper is "incandescent" or "brilliant", than I would hope ~~someone would have spilled some ink on it~~ a reliable source would provide additional coverage of it, which we could use as a source in his article. BenKuykendall ( talk) 16:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

We need not to speculate, we can read that one higly cited paper. It was a timely review on a computing competition in the hot field of machine learning. - It would be enormously more productive for us to expand and improve our suite of articles on machine learning instead of wasting time and efforts with biographic trivia about coauthors of this or that moderately impressive paper. -- Oisguad ( talk) 19:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep Notability Passes. JPL549 ( talk) 10:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply

This is no vote. Opinions unsupported by novel arguments are not helpful. -- Oisguad ( talk) 16:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment Oisguad Next time, Please put the comments below, you have broken the thread, which is bad form and against WP Policy.. The Canada Chair two is Tier two, which is described by Wikipedia as as given to exceptional emerging researchers, acknowledged by their peers as having the potential to lead in their field, so it is not some random selection to a chair, instead it has been carefully choosen by his peers for a specific purpose. The idea you have advanced somehow you can write some papers, cite yourself and get a decent H-index is a reason for us to abandon the article is a bit tendentious and disingenuous, missing peer review by 4 and 5* journals (uk term). The Bagheri article has more that demonstrated the ability to reach WP:BIO and WP:GNG, and WP:ACADEMIC. Even when you are selected for two chairs, even if one is an industrial chair, there is always a peer group/committee sitting at the end to decide who to appoint. It is not some random selection, instead a carefully reviewed process to appoint him to the two chairs. It is a Keep scope_creep ( talk) 15:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Sorry, Scope creep, for hurting your feelings about form. Conversely, I would appreciate if you could structure your arguments in a way that it is possible to answer them one by one. -- Oisguad ( talk) 16:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Scope creep, now you argue with an "ability to reach" several notability criteria. Which is plain admission that our hero is not notable yet. This said, I fully agree with you that he seems to be an extremely bright and productive researcher. But as long as there is no 3rd-party coverage of his work, it is impossible to write a meaningful biographic entry. Just career steps. Why duplicate them from his CV? Why waste time on such an "encyclopedic article"? I just don't understand what motivates you personally to insist on keeping this article. Of course I could have asked that a thousand other collaborators at a thousand other occasions; I just happened to come here. -- Oisguad ( talk) 16:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment BenKuykendall what sort of language is that: I would hope someone would have spilled some ink on it for Wikipedia. scope_creep ( talk) 15:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Scope creep: I did not intend to offend by using an idiom. I am sorry if it was unprofessional. I have replaced it with more straightforward language. BenKuykendall ( talk) 16:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks very much. scope_creep ( talk) 17:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment I cant add any more. If there is no coverage at all, then he fails WP:SIGCOV, even if he is notable enough for an article. scope_creep ( talk) 17:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I would like to see some new !voters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 16:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Weak delete. The citation record shows that he was one of five coauthors of a heavily used data set, and not much else. The Canada Research Chair is tier 2; if it were tier 1 it would probably be enough. Nothing else of significance has turned up since the start of the AfD. So he's close on a couple of points of WP:PROF#C1, but I'd prefer to see a clear pass of one than a near miss of two. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. The only thing going for him is that one of the papers he co-authored has 1000+ citations. Nothing else stands out. That's too little (not a solo-authorship, no other major works, contributions, awards). We can't be certain how important his contribution to that paper was. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 09:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 15:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

List of islands of Syria

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

Entirely pointless list with only two entries, a figure that is unlikey to increase. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi Mr TheLongTone ! why that's article will be delete ? because Syria have only few islands, so it's can not make a list, right ? I real do not know but you can tell me: how many islands can be make a [list] ? Đông Minh ( talk) 14:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I will continue improving the article... Đông Minh ( talk) 15:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Mr TheLongTone, you can see it again ! Đông Minh ( talk) 16:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep No policy based rationale for deletion given in the nomination. I disagree that a list of islands of a country is "pointless". I am not aware that a list simply being short is a valid ground for deletion. Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 15:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply
~~Delete~~. Two tiny islands, for which only one has an article, don't justify a list. Does the other one actually exist, and if it does, is it big enough to be included? -- Michig ( talk) 15:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

and you Michig, I know you an administrator, and I know you from largest nation in the world: British empire with 1/4 world's surface, so you will never care any small island of any country in the word, Rockall like example, right ? . A small island, oh no, super small island not important, you don't want EEZ, oil, right?.... You know ? Chinese and Vietnamese they was killed each other because a small rock between sea. Don't tell me small island not meaning. Excuse me ! Đông Minh ( talk) 17:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I'll excuse you when you can behave in a less offensive manner. -- Michig ( talk) 17:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

so sorry because I'm not yet competently tend to be much more strict of En.Wiki Đông Minh ( talk) 00:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 18:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

This should never have been nominated, per WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. The deletion rationales above seem entirely based on the current content of the list, not its potential, and it has been significantly expanded since being nominated. [14] And even if it were judged after actual research to not have potential as a viable standalone list, at most this title would be redirected/merged to Geography of Syria, not deleted. postdlf ( talk) 19:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep. Islands still qualify for WP:GEOLAND even with only a few of them in a list. Ajf773 ( talk) 19:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep if this is a complete list or has the potential to be a complete list. (If we were dealing with Indonesia or the Philippines, I doubt the list could ever be complete, but for Syria the list may be completable.) Otherwise, merge to Geography of Syria. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge to Geography of Syria. At the time of nomination it wasn't worth keeping, and the expansion would in my view have been better directed towards a section in the Geography of Syria article. But now we have the content here, it will need to be merged if it's going to be incorporated there. -- Michig ( talk) 20:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep with the proviso that a better source should be found than simply google maps. I'll add one for Arwad FOARP ( talk) 20:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep Valid albeit short WP:NLIST article. SportingFlyer talk 10:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:GEOLAND, which says that named geographical features for which a standalone article cannot be developed should "instead be included in a more general article". These islands are plainy named geographical features and a list is a perfectly suitable general article for them. Spinning Spark 11:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment – I tried working on the article earlier, but had problems in even verifying some of the islands listed on the page. Searches for some of them are providing very few results, at least where I'm at in the world. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply
- You're right, verification is difficult for such small, uninhabited features. I spent some time on Al Abbas and finally came up with "Late Quaternary marine terraces in the Mediterranean coastal area of Syria" which from a snippet tells me "Composition and microstructure of sediments composing the lower terrace in the coastal area of Western Syria: (a) ...; (d) detrital limestone from El Abbas Island; ...". I'll look for some of the others later. Spinning Spark 13:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  - I doubt there will be much written about any of them bar the single one that is inhabited, Arwad. They others are basically just tiny islets south of Arwad. You can pick them out on aerial photos if you really zoom in but it strikes me that if these were in a location that had more sizeable islands, most would probably be too small to merit inclusion in a list, which is the crux of the issue here as I see it. -- Michig ( talk) 14:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    - There is no basis in GEOLAND or any other guideline for exclusion based on size. Your current position is to merge into Geography of Syria. I fail to see how these islands would merit inclusion in that article, but not in this list. "Geography of Syria" is three levels higher in the categorization heirarchy than "Islands of Syria" so they would merit inclusion there even less if anything. Spinning Spark 14:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply
      - For one small inhabited island with four tiny islets nearby, a standalone list seems excessive to me. -- Michig ( talk) 14:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    - They now all have a citation that at least confirms existence. By the way, they are not all to the South of Arwad. Jazirat Basirah is about five miles to the North. Spinning Spark 17:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

...a small island make reason for EEZ, and maybe war (or discuss), like Isla Aves, if it is reason war between nations, don't make that reason discuss (or war) between wikipedians. so sorry if I make you lost the time, you all, Mr.Spinningspark and mr.Michig. Because time is gold, delete the list, don't lost much time for small thing. You know ? I love island and sometime I wish I have an island I will go to that, leave the world and leave myself, like Robinson Crusoe but I will never back (my english not good, sorry) Đông Minh ( talk) 16:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 16:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment. While I'm personally not in favour of keeping this as a standalone list, it seems to me that there is sufficient consensus to keep, and the relist is unnecessary. -- Michig ( talk) 16:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Six editors don't advocate for a straight keep. wumbolo ^^^ 17:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep I don't think this list is complete yet - there is more than one island in Lake Assad, for example (Jazirat al-Thawra, mentioned in the Lake Assad article, and Qal'at Ja'bar), and there are other lakes and rivers in Syria which probably also have islands in them. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 18:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep This seems like a perfectly valid topic, I think the rationale for deletion is in poor flavour. I think the article should be Islands of Syria with a synopsis for each Island if possible. Govvy ( talk) 12:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:HEY relative to my comment above and WP:5, #1, Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Annie Morton

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

WP:NMODEL No notability. Being mentioned in the New York Times in 1996, doesn’t cut it. Trillfendi ( talk) 16:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep A fundamentally flawed WP:BEFORE. Multiple profiles in RS, also part of an anorexia controversy in the mid 1990s, easily passes WP:GNG. Some examples: Ritea, Steve (10 March 1997). "Supermodel or No, Her Heart's in Bucks: Annie Morton is on her way, many say". Philadelphia Inquirer. p. B2.; Weale, Sally (3 June 1996). "Women: Look, I'm not that thin: Her pictures in Vogue have put the all-models-are-anorexic argument right back on the front pages". The Guardian. p. T.007.; Baden, Jennifer (2 November 1997). "Who's That Girl". The Sunday Times. p. Style, 46. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep Meets WP:GNG as per sources. [15] It is possible that some more sources are not online. Orientls ( talk) 05:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Well if they aren’t online then how are we supposed to establish and verify notability here? Trillfendi ( talk) 05:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Editors often consult physical copies of books and magazines, microfilm in libraries, and paywalled databases (which is where the above references come from). Editors working on WP:GEO articles even drive around confirming locations. There's no requirement for online sources, and WP:N is clear: "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." If you have a specific reason to doubt the sources that are provided in a discussion, you should raise those specifically. Otherwise most editors seem to assume good faith when sources are provided that they cannot personally confirm. Bakazaka ( talk) 06:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:GNG. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 20:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Cabayi ( talk) 09:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Arts Access Aotearoa

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

No evidence of notability. Three pages in to a bing search and there's nothing but social media, fundraising, & trade listings, certainly nothing approaching the requirements for reliable, verifiable, independent sources. Cabayi ( talk) 12:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 12:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 12:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

KioreNZ here, pretty sure I'm doing this wrong, sorry! I've been reading things and I'm still not very confident using Wikipedia. The logo was taken from the organization's website and after the first notice I got in touch and confirmed they're okay with me using it - are you able to give me the rough idea of what I need to do to so that this image is compliant with Wikipedia processes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KioreNZ ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply

KioreNZ, this isn't a discussion about the logo (though that has issues too), it's about the article. There's no evidence that the organisation meets Wikipedia's threshold for notability, under either the general or organisation specific guidelines. Hope that helps, Cabayi ( talk) 09:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 12:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 16:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep The major New Zealand newspapers The Herald and The Press have stories about Arts in Corrections, eg [16], the Arts Access Awards, eg [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], and other organisations have stories about the awards or the Arts For All guide and network - [24], [25], [26]. Short of having WP articles for the awards and the Arts for All and Arts in Corrections initiatives, having one article about the overall organisation makes sense to me. The article could certainly do with improvement, including reliable independent sources and more specific examples of the impact of the programs and awards (and editing sentences that have been part-edited and left mangled). RebeccaGreen ( talk) 05:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment I have added some references to the article, and fixed one sentence. More could be done, but this may help establish the notability of the organisation's initiatives. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 06:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

General Hmood Dawi Al-Qthami

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

No evidence of notability. The only source is by the subject, not about him. Bing search returns this article, his book, and a wiki. Cabayi ( talk) 12:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 12:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 12:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 12:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 16:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete no sign of notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Llewellyn Worldwide

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

No significant independent coverage (in provided references or through my own search), so fails WP:CORP. Wqwt ( talk) 20:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 22:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 22:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 22:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 12:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 16:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep -- Despite nom's assertions there is sufficient independent significant coverage to establish GNG passage. For instance:

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

The National Center of French-Speaking Students in Israel

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

GNG fail ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 23:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:TNT. Seems non notable as searches give nothing which would show significant coverage of subject. Sdmarathe ( talk) 03:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment There appear to be more coverage of the subject in French - [27] [28] [29], and I expect there'd be some in Hebrew as well. Hzh ( talk) 21:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Don't believe this passes WP:GNG. Number 5 7 12:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Satyam Rana

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:CREATIVE. The awards seem non-notable and are not supported by reliable sources. GSS ( talk| c| em) 06:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 06:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 06:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment this was recently moved over from draftspace. I did not accept it since I thought someone else could verify whether the awards were notable - I don't know all that much about Nepalese film - which would help satisfy WP:CREATIVE #4. Not sure which sources aren't reliable, either, as nothing seems wrong with this: [30]. Considered removing the PROD to have a fuller discussion. I have no comment either way on whether this is kept or not. SportingFlyer talk 06:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

@ SportingFlyer: xnepali.net is not a reliable source, please see their about us page. GSS ( talk| c| em) 06:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

@ GSS: I think it's open to interpretation. It has an editor and is clearly not a blog anymore. SportingFlyer talk 07:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Anyone can create a website and claim anything they wish. This website do not satisfy WP:RS and therefore cannot be used as evidence of notability. GSS ( talk| c| em) 07:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete- nothing here to prove notability. There is no inherent notability in being a Visual Effects Artist thus the subject in question does not warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. FitIndia ^Talk 18:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Dave Stroud

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

Not finding multiple instances of independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. There are some interviews around (e.g. [31]), which are primary, and do not establish notability, but otherwise, not finding source coverage to qualify an article as per WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete- as per the nominator fails WP:BASIC. FitIndia ^Talk 18:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:ATD argues for the merge, but not if the content is unsourced. Feel free to add mention of this to the radio station, but make sure whatever you add is sourced. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Rabbit Amber and Cosi

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

A radio show without sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources to clear the general notability guidelines. The article does not present a clear claim to notability, so it seems like a WP:MILL radio show. RetiredDuke ( talk) 16:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Merge I cannot see anything that supports this having notability in its own right, but it does warrant a couple of due weight sentences in its historical parent radio station article HIT 107. Aoziwe ( talk) 09:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply
- I don't think we should merge unsourced info. The parent article for HIT 107 is mostly unsourced as it is. RetiredDuke ( talk) 11:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. A sentence or two about this show would be perfectly acceptable in the radio station's article, if it can be reliably sourced — but nothing here establishes that the show is independently notable enough to have its own standalone article separately from that. Bearcat ( talk) 21:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Gandanga

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

Non-notable record label that only receives name checks and faint passing mentions in reliable sources; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete The sources are no doubt, absolutely not credible (404 error), the coverage also not. Agree with above. LikeMeercats ( talk) 04:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anne-Marie (singer). If anyone wants to merge, revision history is there to extract the info. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Speak Your Mind Tour

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

The article consists of a setlist and a gig guide. The sources are one announcement that the tour is going to happen and two posts on Twitter. A search turned up nothing WP:RS about the tour, only instructions as to how to buy tickets. Fails WP:NTOUR and WP:GNG. Narky Blert ( talk) 15:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Merge' or redirect to Anne-Marie (singer) in the spirit of WP:TOOSOON as there's nothing that can be written that isn't the setlist/tour dates, with no prejudice against recreation once there's more coverage of the tour.— Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 12:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment by nom. No objection to merge or to redirect, and no prejudice against recreation should the tour in future pass WP:NTOUR. Narky Blert ( talk) 21:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Dina Manfredini

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

Non-notable old lady. She lived a long time, and... that's about it, as being the oldest person in the world for a few weeks doesn't seem to have generated anything beyond the utterly routine coverage currently in this article. Hence WP:NOPAGE applies, and there's no obvious place for a redirect. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 14:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia fluff about her family and trivia about what she was doing at what age. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on five different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 ( talk) 02:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete – Nothing of note in the article except longevity records which are best recorded in relevant lists. I'm impressed this lady was "still shoveling snow at 106", though. I would support a redirect to List of Italian supercentenarians, where she is one of the oldest on record, so that readers looking up her name don't rush to re-create a WP:NOPAGE article. — JFG ^talk 04:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Routine coverage ('becomes oldest person' or 'Dina Manfredini dies'). I can't find any story which provides in depth non trivial coverage. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't always apply but Wikipedia doesn't have articles for every person who was the oldest person in the world. So delete. Also open to the redirect idea put forth by JFG. JC7V -talk 07:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Thaimail

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

Fails WP:NWEB and WP:NORG. Few independent, reliable reviews exist. StraussInTheHouse ( talk) 14:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. As Thailand's first and largest webmail provider, they very likely received plenty of coverage in the late 1990s. Back then, many TV channels' evening news contained regular segments teaching people how to use the Internet, and I expect that Thaimail would have been featured in many such broadcasts. Such coverage from twenty years ago wouldn't be easily available online, but in all likelihood exist in archives. Here's English-language coverage of the site's closure. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 10:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep. These are news coverage of site closure by respectable IT-related news site: [32] [33] [34] [35] Most of current Thai websites didn't exist during its peak time. -- Lerdsuwa ( talk) 14:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

CisLunar Industries

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

There is a société anonyme in Luxembourg of this name, according to the Registre de Commerce et des Sociétés - see this search. With the assertions that it is "developing and building space technology to recycle space debris" and "one of the first institutional members of the Moon Village Association" it would appear to me that this company would have a substantial internet footprint. It does not. In its current state, this article fails not only the WP:CORPDEPTH test and may also be "Db-inc" WP:A7-able. Pete AU aka Shirt58 ( talk) 10:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 00:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Tera-play

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

Appears to be an advertisement created by an SPA; I have found no references at all that mention the term; Google Scholar only gives matches to "Lepidop-tera play" and Google search gives results about playing an MMO game called TERA. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete I see passing mentions around and the article having WP:OR. Rzvas ( talk) 04:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 13:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Ingelore Ebberfeld

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

Per WP:AUTHOR. No indication of: 1. Regarded as important or central figure. 2. Innovation of concept or technique. 3. Creation of well-known body of work. 4. Critical attention, exhibition or the like. Source searches in both English and German show little in the way of substantial coverage or attention. The German Wikipedia article is an exact replica (just in German). StraussInTheHouse ( talk) 13:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete a non-notable academic. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per JPL. Impossible to find sufficient reliable sources to indicate depth or persistance of coverage as to indicate notability under the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. —— SerialNumber 54129 17:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Shahawat

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

Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. This went to AfD in September but was closed cos of no consensus. Knowing what we now know about these Carter stubs, can we please have a consensus and kill it? ithankyou Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 11:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. The previous AFD closed as "no consensus" because one user argued it might exist without providing a shred of evidence. That is a ridiculous close in a debate that was otherwise unanimously for delete. Of course, we can have articles on things that might exist but cannot be proved not to. But only if, like Russell's teapot, there is a significant amount of discussion in reliable sources on the possibility. This one not only fails GNG and GEOLAND by dint of not existing, but it cannot even rise to the level of WP:TEAPOT. Spinning Spark 12:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Ghamrah, United Arab Emirates

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

Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Unsourced. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 11:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. No Ghamrah found in UAE. It seems, however, that there is a Ghamra, or Ghamrah, in Egypt so perhaps the dab page should be retained with a suitable additional entry. Spinning Spark 13:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Bisi Ibidapo-Obe

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

I see no evidence this person meets NACTOR or GNG and all the sources I can find are gossip blogs/sites or gossip pieces. Praxidicae ( talk) 11:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. Sources provided have no editorial control. No evidence of notability per WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:NACTOR. Is Nutin 14:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soltesh ( talk • 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. Tagged as unsourced for 10 years. Gone. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Harobots

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

Does not satisfy WP:GNG. Remained unsourced for 10 years now. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 11:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete: you might have even gone for a speedy delete due to being unsourced for this amount of time. ~ Dissident93 ^(
talk) 22:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Lily Jay

AfDs for this article:

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

Reads like a promotional article (violating WP:PROMO), was recreated using almost all the same sources (along with a paywall link, 2 passing mentions (one being a bare mention on Top list on Buzzfeed), IMDB, now all removed). Apart from a possible non notable website MBSpost which is also inactive, everything else left in the article seems like a routine or WP:SPIP (BEFORE search finds nothing). She fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 11:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE. I cannot find any significant coverage. Jmertel23 ( talk) 13:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Trillfendi ( talk) 15:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. St Anselm ( talk) 20:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Could not see anything close to sufficient IRS to pass GNG or MUSIC or other. Aoziwe ( talk) 12:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Feathercoin

AfDs for this article:

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

There was never enough coverage in reliable sources for this to be notable, so it fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Be aware that the article was longer as of a few weeks ago and contained numerous unreliable sources and promospeak. Previous AfDs are a mess of canvassing and blocked users. — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 09:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Here's the previous version, cited to press releases and bitcoin blogs. Note the article was deleted at AFD previously - this probably warrants salting - David Gerard ( talk) 10:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources Retimuko ( talk) 19:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest ( talk) 00:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest ( talk) 00:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest ( talk) 00:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest ( talk) 00:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete does not pass the general notability guideline. Balkywrest ( talk) 00:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Craig A. Cardon

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC:

Various WP:BEFORE searches are providing primary source coverage such as a sermon by the subject (a primary source); otherwise, only name checks and very brief passing mentions.
Not finding the necessary independent, significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify an article.
The article is entirely based and reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete as per nom. TH1980 ( talk) 04:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply

The Girl (Hellberg song)

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

Contains no charting information, all of the sources used in the article are unreliable, fails WP:NSONGS. N Ø 09:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete In the article's edit history is a claim of a sales chart, which the reference used to support it no longer includes and is unable to be recovered as per WP:DEADREF. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk • contribs) 14:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment: could this be speedy deleted under A9? Richard3120 ( talk) 23:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Richard3120: This is exactly what I tried last year, but was declined due to the song featuring the vocals of Cozi Zuehlsdorff, who has an article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk • contribs) 01:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Susanna Fournier

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of an actress, whose only serious notability claim per WP:NACTOR is having won a non-notable local theatre award. As always, every award that exists is not an automatic free pass over the "notable for winning a significant award" criterion -- high-level awards such as Oscars, Emmys, Canadian Screen Awards, Tonys or Doras get a person past that bar, while the minor "Patrick Conner Award" does not. And the only other notability claim even being attempted here is that she's had roles -- but as always, that criterion is not passed or failed by the list of roles, but by the depth of reliable source coverage in media that she has or hasn't received for having roles. Simply put, nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced to much more than just a non-notable award's own press release announcing its own winner. Bearcat ( talk) 20:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 22:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 22:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 22:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment Subject is also a playwright and the co-creator of plays that have been the subject of multiple reviews in major Canadian newspapers, raising the possibility of WP:CREATIVE#3. Two sources already exist in the article, and a quick search finds a recent Calgary Herald review of her Antigone Lives production as well. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Weak keep There are other works of hers that are not mentioned in this article, and she has won at least one other award, and an honourable mention in the Canadian national playwriting competition. I have realised that she appeared in the North American version of Being Human, which, being in Australia where the UK version was shown, I am less aware of, so I'm not sure how much of a fan base she has from that (though I do see a German reference). The article certainly needs improvement, but there is potential to show notability, I think. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 07:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Just to be clear, she had a supporting role as a minor character in Being Human, and was not one of the main stars for the purposes of satisfying NACTOR #1 (and even if she had been one of the main stars, the notability test would still be the reception of reliable source coverage about her performance in the role, not just the basic IMDb-verification of the role.) Bearcat ( talk) 16:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Eduardo Gavarret

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC:

Various WP:BEFORE searches are only providing name checks, fleeting passing mentions and quotations from the subject. Not finding the necessary independent, significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify an article.
The article is almost entirely reliant upon primary sources, and the one independent source in the article ( [36]) only provides a very minor passing mention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete I couldn't find any sources that established notability. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus for keeping. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Braemar Hospital

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

All sources are primary, thereby making the article not verifiable. Fails WP:NORG, potential WP:PROMO. WP:BEFORE check did not bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo ( talk) 03:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment Even a trivial Google search finds the hospital listed in the New Zealand Ministry of Health's certified providers listings [37], as well as several articles in Waikato Times (and later, Stuff.co.nz) e.g. [38] [39] [40]. Verifiability seems not to be an issue. Bakazaka ( talk) 04:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 04:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Primary sources do not affect verifiability. It's not been hard to find quite detailed independent articles showing that it's notable, as most hospitals are. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I've driven through Hamilton one or twice in the 1950s so I don't know it well but what fascinates me is the instant familiarity of the names: Braemar, Doctors' Hospital, Private hospital as if these were the names used by now extinct nation-wide charities (Presbyterians?) for their establishments before the 1930s arrival of truly socialised medicine. Is this an accidental survivor of provincial New Zealand with enough funding to raise its standards to government requirements? Eddaido ( talk) 11:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

keep as notable. Schwede 66 16:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply
4 of the 7 refs are from newspapers. Some of the text could do with rewriting as less promotional, but I agree keep as notable. Johnragla ( talk) 19:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

agree with your reasons. Keep, but improve. Somej ( talk) 09:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep as notable - should be a speedy keep. Nothing to debate about this one NealeFamily ( talk) 01:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett ( talk) 06:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep, per emerging consensus above. / Julle ( talk) 23:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Whealth by Slaiman

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

dubious notability, and blp violations of the subjects of his videos DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Article currently heavily reliant on PRIMARY. I could not see any IRS to satisfy anything close to GNG.
Delete - The article fails WP:GNG because it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. - tucoxn\^talk 18:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Shannon Cunniff

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

Does not pass WP:GNG ( WP:BASIC) currently. All the sources currently on the page are not independent from her. I have also not been able to find any independent sources. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me |
my contributions} 16:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I understand concern about sources, and I will do my best to address it. Ms. Cunniff is significant within the environmental policy world, and especially given the limited visibility of women in such fields, it's important that her page remain if at all possible. I will use the page for one of her male colleagues, Fred Krupp, as a model while reworking the article. Note that several of the sources on his page are also published by the environmental defense fund, for which he works. UrbanLandReader ( talk) 13:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't use that as a model; it's not a good article and has only survived because it was created in 2006, before some of our present guidelines were formulated. Deb ( talk) 14:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Has anyone looked at the edits to the article? UrbanLandReader ( talk) 16:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete unless someone will remove the promotional tone of it. Trillfendi ( talk) 02:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Sounds very promotional in it's tone which would violate WP:PROMO, the subject also does not pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC for lack of *signifcant coverage secondary sources per WP:SIGCOV*, something that is just not present here. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 01:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb ( talk) 03:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I tried to edit some of the promotional tone... was the concern that it was promotional of the subject or of a particular environmental perspective? Because her profession is an environmental advocate. UrbanLandReader ( talk) 17:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails WP:PROF. No coverage to pass WP:GNG. Just someone doing their job. Not encyclopedic due to achievements (yet). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 09:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Madrasa Misbah al-Uloom

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

Unreferenced; I've tried several spellings and have been unable to find any references to a place in Bradford of this name. If it is simply a mosque's educational outreach program, it is unlikely to be notable. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 02:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 02:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 02:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL; not seeing any significant reliable source coverage to establish notability. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 04:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per lack of notability. Also fails WP:NSCHOOL. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 09:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete could refer to a number of Madrasahs of this name, and not specific to Bradford. See [41] where they indicate they are unsure about the data. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; clearly more sources than I expected/found. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Terre Haute House

AfDs for this article:

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

Violates WP:NOR / WP:V. An article about a demolished building with no inline references, no particular claims of importance, and "External links" which don't seem to have any relevance to the topic. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 02:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep - The hotel was at one time the premier hotel in the city. It is discussed in the book "America's Main Street Hotels: Transiency and Community in the Early Auto Age" published by the University of Tennessee Press. The external links probably were pertinent when added to the article, but most have gone stale; I'll try to see if they are archived anywhere. The article could use a good copy edit since some of the language is non-encyclopedic. Indyguy ( talk) 03:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. Anything that is being reported as notable as far back as 1873 has got my vote per WP:50 year rule. Terre Haute & Vigo County in Vintage Postcard covers it over three pages. Terre Haute: Queen City of the Wabash does not cover it any great detail, but it does have a couple of interesting anectodes that aren't in the article and probably should be added. On page 44 there is the story of contractors drilling for a sulphur water supply for the hotel struck oil instead. They ignored that and carried on drilling till they found the sulphur water. Also, the echo ( whispering wall effect?) from one wall of the hotel was a tourist attraction. Spinning Spark 11:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

There is also substantial coverage of the hotel in Hulman's biography and America's Main Street Hotels: Transiency and Community in the Early Auto Age, both by respectable publishers (Mcfarland Press and University of Tennessee Press)> Spinning Spark 11:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. Indyguy's assertions would probably suffice for me; Spinningspark's information makes it clear. -- Doncram ( talk) 19:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G5, created by blocked user User:Ameera Patel Primefac ( talk) 15:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Aladdin bin Majid Al-Said

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

Vanity Biography (possible hoax) with no individual claims for notability. Claims to be of a son of Sultan of Oman, but only has WP:REFBOMBS of fake sources and WP:SPS with no WP:RS. article was started with edit summary "missing page on the Al Said lineage of Oman" , so possibility of hoax/spam also exist. even if not a hoax, Notability is not WP:NOTINHERITED DBig Xrayᗙ 02:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 02:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga ( talk) 03:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment Noting that this possible hoax is also applicable for WP:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G5. Creations by banned or blocked users as an article created by sock User:Ameera Patel and all major edits from this sockfarm. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 15:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G5, created by blocked user User:Ameera Patel. Primefac ( talk) 15:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Majid bin Hamud Al-Busaid

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

Vanity Biography (possible hoax) with no individual claims for notability. Claims to be of a son of Sultan of Oman, but only has WP:REFBOMBS of fake sources and WP:SPS with no WP:RS. even if not a hoax, Notability is not WP:NOTINHERITED DBig Xrayᗙ 01:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 01:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 02:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment Noting that this possible hoax is also applicable for WP:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G5. Creations by banned or blocked users as an article created by sock User:Ameera Patel and all major edits from this sockfarm. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 15:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 01:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Danielle Knudson

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

Well, dammit, this is just plain rude. Absolutely nothing about her career yet two ridiculous gossip claims that she dated two footballers. And The Sun? Really? Come on now. This is disgraceful. It goes without saying. Trillfendi ( talk) 19:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 10. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:53, 10 November 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.

[Sharma_2018-1] Sharma, Mahesh (2012-08-31). "99 problems but a design ain't one | ZDNet". ZDNet. Retrieved 2018-07-26.

[1]

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook