Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 5 November 7 November >

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 keep. North America 1000 09:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Erez Aviram

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

Notability not established per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Geoff | Who, me? 21:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 01:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:27, 6 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Dylan Jones (voice actor)

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

Does not seem to have the kinds of roles which suggest notability per WP:NENT, nor the accomplishments to pass WP:ANYBIO, nor coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 05:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 05:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:27, 6 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 List of Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah characters. The "keep" opinions do not address the reasons for deletion and the issue of source quality. Sandstein 12:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Daya Jethalal Gada

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

Fails MOS:TVCAST or Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Characters_and_other_fictional_elements. Treats character a real person with in-universe information. Covered in List of Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah characters already. Lacks information on in real world sense such as role, development, themes, critical reception etc. In-universe information is already covered in Characters article so I propose merge and redirect to that article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jethalal Gada which was his co-star and similar type of problems. Regards,- Nizil ( talk) 11:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the additional sources. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Aoba47, all above sources are about Disha Vakani who plays the character of Daya Jethalal Gada. There no information on the character itself. Please note it. Fictional character needs references on it in "real-world" sense to have its own article. Above references do not provide it. Thank you,- Nizil ( talk) 16:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your message. I agree with you to an extent. I think that sources on the actress in relation to the character (i.e. casting, their approach to the character, etc.) could be useful, though I agree that more sources directly about the character itself are necessary to address the notability concerns raised in this AfD. I am doubtful that the above sources are enough to support the character having a separate article, though I think it is moving the discussion in a better direction than the more generic "popularity" arguments. I am uncertain about how to vote, as I am uncertain how the language barrier would impact things (I am an American/English native speaker who has never heard of this character or program before). If I had to cast a vote either way, I would argue that a redirect would be more appropriate than deletion. I think it would be helpful to see the keep voters link to articles about the character itself to support their argument better. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Since some people are hell-bent on seeing the "evidence" of the obvious, here -- Adamstraw99 ( talk) 22:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" arguments here don't help with a decision, as they relate to popularity rather than notability. Arguments which address the amount of out-of-universe reference material available would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Adamstraw99, the reference you provided: 5 reasons why you're daya of taarak mehta have nothing on out-of-universe information on this fictional character. I have specifically asked for references on the role, development, themes and critical reception of this fictional character. There are many references on "in-universe" information but we need "real-world" information to have separate article on this fictional character. Please provide such references. Popularity is not questioned, notability to have separate article is questioned. We already have an article on the list of characters of the show.- Nizil ( talk) 06:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As noted in the previous relist, the current Keep !votes have not discussed "real-world" information
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah characters and merge the references to the subsection about the character. I have previously participated in this AfD, but I have chosen to cast a vote to help out. Since none of the "keep" voters have provided further sources on the actual character itself, I do not believe there is enough notability for a stand-alone article. The fact that she is a popular character can be summed up in a short sentence include in the list. This could be a viable search and there is a viable redirect target so I think a redirect is preferable over outright deletion. Aoba47 ( talk) 03:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Aoba47. Sources exist but they're low-quality when it comes to establishing independent, out-of-universe notability. SITH (talk) 13:56, 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 12:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

The Mountain Astrologer

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

No RSes, and no indication of notability. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
I would point out that WP:GNG requires significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. A single mention in an RS and several mentions in decidedly non-RS works from inside the same walled garden do not constitute "significant" or "independent" coverage. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Wait, what were these "multiple books coverage"? I apparently wasn't able to find them. -- tronvillain ( talk) 22:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I'm not finding anything resembling significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Some use as a source and some incidental mentions? Sure. Significant coverage? No. I've found far more about subjects that still weren't notable enough to keep. -- tronvillain ( talk) 22:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk ( talk) 20:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This magazine fails WP:GNG. Literally nothing of the references (which are: a references without a link, second one is the closest to attribute to something but seems like a passing mention, primary stuff and the reference that has nothing to do with the subject) in the article is significant coverage of the subject to account to WP:SIGCOV which counts towards WP:GNG. I was not able to find anything in secondary sources. Regarding as to what Atlantic306 has said, to pass WP:GNG you need to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Not notable. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 10:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. To be honest, I didn't get very far in my research of this. I clicked through to the William White Library Journal reference, where I read, A thoughtful periodical many heads above those found at supermarket checkout lines.... If the best they can say about it is that it's better than The National Enquirer, that's enough for me to say it doesn't belong in wikipedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 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 speedy delete. This qualifies under WP:CSD#A3 because the content of the article was literally just the title rephrased as a complete sentence. -- Kinu t/ c 16:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Kanniayamman Koil Street, Anakaputhur

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

It's a city street with no apparent claim to notability. ... discospinster talk 21:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:42, 8 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lion. There's consensus to not keep this as a separate article. Sandstein 08:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

African lion

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

This article is superfluous to our current profusion of lion articles. As well as lion we have pages on the two main subspecies. This page does not correspond to any taxonomic entity, but covers about 98% of all lions (i.e. all but a tiny population in India). If it exists at all it should be at "lions in Africa" but even then realistically almost all the information should be elsewhere on wikipedia already. These articles are often degraded with many well-meaning edits by people using poor-quality sources as well so often end up being detrimental to the project as a whole. Any excess information that can't fit on the parent page ( lion) could go on one of the subspecies pages (now being determined by a merging process. See Talk:Lion#Proposed_merger_of_Northern_lion_and_Panthera_leo_leo Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Agree. Page title can be used to redirect to main lion page, as in this diff of March 2009. -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 21:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Good idea!! -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 07:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
@ BhagyaMani and Punetor i Rregullt5: How's that supposed to happen? The information here is huge, and it's much more than just about distribution. Leo1pard ( talk) 08:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC); edited 08:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
THIS page is not the purpose of that discussion about how to integrate the info. -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 08:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Then why did you mention it? How are you going to do that if you don't know how to? Leo1pard ( talk) 08:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Continue at Talk:African_lion#No_such_thing_as_the_African_lion. -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 09:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I was already there, but you didn't go there. Leo1pard ( talk) 12:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, this is a highly WP:Notable topic that has been covered in various WP:Reliable sources and contains a lot of information that would be difficult to merge in other pages, which renders this article's nomination for deletion a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. For example, the Cat Specialist group, which revised subspecies in 2017, continued to use the name "African lion" to describe the genetically diverse population of lions in Africa which are split up to northern and southern subspecies, as it continued to use the names of other notable populations that aren't recognized by them as subspecies anymore, and admitted that there was uncertainty over their reclassification of the subspecies, due to a lack of morphological analysis, and the fact that two recently recognized subspecies of African lions apparently overlap in northern parts of East Africa, which is based on the work of Bertola et al., who showed that African lions are divided not just into northern and southern subspecies, but also that these subspecies are divided into different clades, such as snortheastern and southeastern clades within the southern subspecies, which had members that migrated to places where other clades are present to form mixed populations in different parts of Africa. In addition, different results from genetic analyses, such as on lions in Central Africa, show that the division between the northern subspecies isn't always clear, because, for example, though one assessment grouped lions in the northern part of this region, which are supposed to belong to the northern subspecies, separately from lions in Southern Africa, which are supposed to belong to the southern subspecies, another assessment grouped certain lions in northern Central Africa with lions in Southern Africa. This isn't in the main page Lion. Leo1pard ( talk) 07:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC); edited 12:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The extra material relevant to genetic mixing between the two subspecies can be summarised on the lion page easily. What specifically else are you saying couldn't be placed elsewhere? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Casliber, you would refer to certain details that I added to the main article 'overkill', so I wasn't interested in keeping it there. Leo1pard ( talk) 12:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Where did I say this was overkill? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Or not 'overkill', my apologies if that was incorrect, but "over the top". Bearing in mind that genetic analyses have been conducted on different populations, including those that used to be treated as subspecies, do you remember what was said about not keeping that much detail in the main article over here, but to leave it in another article, or articles where this is more relevant? Leo1pard ( talk) 13:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)l edited 13:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I said that in response to this level of detail on former subspecies. A concise note about genetic mixing in 2 or 3 sentences is not overkill. And is all that is needed. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Not as per the reliable sources, which talk about more than just issues like overlap. Another issue that I mentioned us that of migrations of lions belonging to different genetic groups to different parts of Africa, including from the time after the Cat Specialist Group revised subspecies with a note of uncertainty regarding lions in places where different genetic groups are present, and there is more to the African lion than just that which was covered in reliable sources which isn't quite elsewhere, such as what Chardonnet et al. said about lions in a particular country. Leo1pard ( talk) 01:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC); edited 02:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  1. The African Lion
  2. Conservation of the African Lion
  3. Lions of Africa
  4. The Biology of the African Lion
  5. In Search of the African Lion
  6. Africa's Lions'
  7. All about the African Lion
  8. African Lions
Andrew, the African lion is 99% synonymous with lion (apart from a tiny Asiatic population). You get that, right? So what would there be that could only go on an African lion page and not lion nor one of the subspecies? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Casliber, the Cat Specialist Group expressed uncertainty over their classification of subspecies, and it's more to do than just genetic mixing. The fact that the two subspecies share the same continent, and migrate to different parts of it here and there means that the division between the subspecies was shown by genetic analyses like this to be blurry, and you had referred to information that was similar to that as 'overkill'. Leo1pard ( talk) 12:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The lion page is quite broad in scope and, at over 100K, is arguably too large and in need of splitting. Lions once roamed all over the world and so there seems to be plenty of scope to discuss them in a geographical and historical context – see American lion, for example. Any development or restructuring should be done by ordinary editing per WP:PRESERVE and so AfD is not the place for this per WP:NOTCLEANUP. My !vote stands. Andrew D. ( talk) 13:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
FWIW, splitting this article into its earlier constituents (which is probably not something that can be decided here anyway) would actually address the article length issue better than what's proposed above. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 22:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Lion Both the "keep" !votes above seem to have completely ignored the OP, both being based on discrediting a "lack of notability" argument no one made. This behaviour is disruptive, and should be stopped. Obviously this page should exist as a redirect, disambig page or some such, and my money's on the former, per CL. At the very least, if the current article is kept, the title needs to be changed to Lions in Africa, as the current one is misleading and implies something equivalent to African elephant. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
And WP:BITE is not a policy, does not apply to an article created by someone with more than 18,000 edits, and is far less relevant here than WP:BRD: six months ago Leo1pard ( talk · contribs) created a standalone article out of a redirect that had been stable as such for more than 11 years. Additionally, Andrew Davidson ( talk · contribs) may be interested to know that Leo1pard unilaterally merged several other previously standalone articles into this one, [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] either without providing attribution (required by Wikipedia's copyright policy, with the exception of the few where they were the sole noteworthy author) or by removing the contents from the live version of Wikipedia altogether and simply redirecting, which actually runs completely counter to the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Hijiri88 It has already been explained that this is a highly WP:Notable topic that has been covered in various WP:Reliable sources and contains a lot of information that would be difficult to merge in other pages, and the article makes it clear that it's not a single species or subspecies, but a genetically diverse group which are recognised as being divided into different clades and subspecies, with the relevant material, so your argument is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, hence disruptive in itself, and as for the issue of attibution, after being talked to about it, I decided to be more careful about that, and I warn that it was after someone else made an article that was similar to existing articles and refused to listen to what was in discussions that this got created, and I had mentioned this in relevant talk-pages. I have been careful to justify in relevant talk-pages about what I do (see this version for example), and that includes what I did here. Leo1pard ( talk) 12:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC); edited 13:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Your entire response to me was already discredited by my own initial !vote, and actually by Cas Liber's OP comment. Additionally, justifying yourself on the relevant talk pages is no good without broad community consensus, and even with community consensus does not justify the lack of attribution. Nowhere in the page history does it say text was merged from elsewhere on Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Wrong, I did become careful about attribution in this article: [14]. Leo1pard ( talk) 13:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
What about the text written by Altaileopard ( talk · contribs), Troodon58 ( talk · contribs) et al. at Southwest African lion and Transvaal lion, or Bhagyamani at Ethiopian lion and East-Southern African lion? Was that text just removed from the encyclopedia when you redirected the pages? Andrew Davidson might have something to say about that, since this is a rare case when the editor with the "deletionist" position is the one arguing to keep the article currently at AFD. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks for pointing this out, Hijiri88!! I just counted about 4 dozen contributions I added to the Central African lion page, before it was redirected on 7 August, and large parts of this was also copy-pasted into [ African lion on 15 September]. -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 13:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Lion. The current verdant proliferation of lion articles has upsides in that WP by now contains a wealth of interconnected information on the fine-grained genetic and historical research on the species. On the downside, there's a substantial amount of duplication and splitting just because someone wants a separate article on their pet topic. The present instance is sort of the crown species of the problem; nothing that I could see would be lost by consolidating or outright redirecting to Lion. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Elmidae and Hijiri88: Shall I tell you the fuller story that BhagyaMani hasn't told you? Earlier, the articles included Asiatic lion, Barbary lion, Cape lion, Congo lion, Masai lion, Southwest African lion, Transvaal lion and West African lion. Then in July 2017, BhagyaMani made a number of massive removals or reductions of referenced content like these ( [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]), without any justification in the talk-page. In response, I decided to use referenced material that was deleted in West African lion to turn Central African lion into an article, but then BhagyaMani came after, doing the same kind of thing that he did earlier ( [20] [21] [22]), without any justification in the relevant talk-page, until I complained to him about what he was doing, and then he [made a justification for his edit, but he made an allegation that the name wasn't used in any reference], which I debunked by using this reference (which says that Asiatic lions are approximately the same size as Central African lions in body weight, using head-and-body measurements of 6 ft 6 in (198 cm) for two Asiatic lions, with tail-lengths of 2 ft 11 in (89 cm) and 2 ft 7 in (79 cm), and total lengths of 9 ft 5 in (287 cm) and 9 ft 3 in (282 cm)), but then BhagyaMani denies what is in the reference by saying that it doesn't talk about body size, and that is an example of what happens when BhagyaMani realises that certain things that he does contradicts relevant sources. More recently, due to a discussion on subspecies, I decided to create Northern lion and Southern lion, merging information from other articles to them like this, and even BhagyaMani supported that at first ( [23] [24]), but then, without justification on any relevant talk-pages, he changed his mind, and turned Panthera leo leo from a redirect to Barbary lion into an article of its own, using some information which was more or less already present in Northern lion, even though I had, during that period, tried to talk to him about what he was doing, but that did not stop him from doing something similar to Panthera leo melanochaita, which used to be a redirect to Cape lion, before BhagyaMani used some information that was more or less already present in another article, and that is not all that BhagyaMani has done which has made people like me and Punetor i Rregullt5 complain about him, or led to serious issues with pages on lions. Leo1pard ( talk) 16:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC); edited 16:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Honestly - not my circus, not my clown car. I lack the stamina to dig through this tit-for-tat epic. I'm currently only commenting on the issue at hand, which is whether African lion appears surplus to current requirements. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
A bigger issue at hand is that BhagyaMani likes to ignore what others say to him in discussions, and keep pushing his POV here and there, even if it disregards what is in WP:Reliable sources, and worse, he can be rude to others, but people, even administrators, may help him in what he does. Leo1pard ( talk) 16:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC); edited 16:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
AFD is not the place to hash those kind of disputes out. If your argument keeping this article hinges on BhagyaMani being a terrible person, or whatever, then the article cannot be kept. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 20:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Then you should not have brought up the issue of what has been going on all along in these pages on lions, if the AfD is not supposed to be about that. You asked a question about pages like this, and their relationship with different editors, and I answered. Leo1pard ( talk) 01:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC); edited 02:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Umm ... what!? You either merged or redirected a whole bunch of other articles, not all of which were written by you, into this article, then tricked poor Andrew Davidson into thinking this was a WP:PRESERVE issue, when in fact the policy PRESERVE is on the side of this content being returned to its original articles pending consensus for such a merge. If you are challenged in your unilateral action by a single user, the onus is on you to get others to agree with you; you could just say that other user is a disruptive presence and needs to be blocked or TBANned, but do that before the AFD, at one of the other appropriate fora; don't try to do it at AFD. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Do not make allegations such as that I have tricked anybody here, where I had to make major changes like shifting other people's articles to here, I would notify them about it, or if they are inactive, mention it in relevant talk-pages, unless it has already been discussed, and I have already made complaints when necessary if other editors made disruptive edits, including at the ANI, but that did not always stop others from doing the same thing over and over again, and this AfD happened to come up whilst discussions on other articles were taking place, despite warnings that focusing on this article in addition to the others would lead to complications. Leo1pard ( talk) 08:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC) edited 08:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Do not make allegations such as that I have tricked anybody here I'm not going to blame you for not reading the currently live discussion of Andrew Davidson at WP:ANI, but even reading my comments on this AFD would have told you that tricked poor Andrew Davidson into thinking this was a WP:PRESERVE issue was meant to be taken facetiously: I know Andrew is well aware that PRESERVE doesn't apply here but rather would favour restoring all the articles you redirected/merged into this one, and is just pretending PRESERVE (and GNG and all that other stuff) applies here in order to "win" another AFD, and did not mean to imply he had been "tricked" by your not disclosing the history of the case up-front. Your saying things like Then you should not have brought up the issue of what has been going on all along in these pages on lions, if the AfD is not supposed to be about that, on the other hand, is difficult to take as a good-faith joke: I never said any such thing, but rather said you should not be trying to say that since the editor who cast the second non-keep !vote was, according to you, a problem editor whose fault it is that this one article didn't exist years earlier, or whatever it is you are claiming, that this article should be kept, and that such allegations are better taken to ANI. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 08:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I see. Leo1pard ( talk) 08:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep this is a population of lion in Africa that is divided in Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita subspecies. A lot of authors have used the term African lion much more than Lions in Africa. It contains a huge information (like Leo1pard said) about the taxonomy of leo and melanochaita, that the main lion page (even Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita) doesn't contain that much. If this page needs to be deleted, than I think that we can merge it here (as I mentioned above). — Punetor i Rregullt5ALBAN ( talk) 16:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The argument to delete this isn't about notability, and those arguing to keep on those grounds are completely off the mark. The question is one of organization. We have a page about the species; Lion. We have a page about each subspecies (yes, I know there's disagreements about what those pages should be, but we're certainly not looking at less than one page per subspecies). We have pages for the two populations that are biologically distinct; the Cape lion and the Asiatic lion. Lions in Africa, taken together, are not a biologically meaningful category. The African lion page serves no purpose, and if there is in fact information in it that isn't present in the pages about the subspecies or the Cape lion population, it should be merged there. Vanamonde ( talk) 01:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
There are various WP:reliable sources that deal with the subject that establish the subjects WP:Notability, including the very organization which reorganized the list of subspecies, with a note of uncertainty regarding particular African lions which are not of any of the specific types that you described here, for which subspecific classification was difficult due to their complicated genetic makeup, but continued to use the name "African lion", as explained already. Leo1pard ( talk) 01:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC); edited 02:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Hijiri88: Both the "keep" !votes above seem to have completely ignored the OP, both being based on discrediting a "lack of notability" argument no one made. This behaviour is disruptive, and should be stopped.
Leo1pard: It has already been explained that this is a highly notable topic that has been covered in various reliable sources.
Vanamonde93: The argument to delete this isn't about notability, and those arguing to keep on those grounds are completely off the mark.
Leo1pard: There are various reliable sources that deal with the subject and establish the subject's notability.
Leo1pard, this level of IDHT is extremely disruptive. If you keep it up much longer you're going to be TBANned or blocked. This is not a threat, but a warning: I've seen far worse result from less. This article won't be kept if "notable notable notable" is the only argument you can muster, but more importantly than that if this behavioral problem continues elsewhere I have serious doubts about your ability to continue contributing to the encyclopedia. I suggest you give it a rest and actually read the comments to which you are responding.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
If it can be guaranteed that relevant material supported by WP:reliable sources can be kept, either here or elsewhere, then I would support the outcome to have this page changed, depending on what the outcome is, because notability was not the only thing that was discussed. Leo1pard ( talk) 08:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
There you go again, talking about "notability", as though it has anything to do with this discussion. Are you doing this on purpose? If so, you need to stop. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 08:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Alright. Leo1pard ( talk) 08:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Support redirect - every possible grouping of lions doesn't need an article. FunkMonk ( talk) 03:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The term African lion is ambiguous. Lions in African include a number of distinct populations, which if given taxon status would be paraphyeltic with the Asiatic lion. If the article is about lions in African, then the article should be titled Lions in Africa or something similar. Given the overlap between lions in general and lions in Africa is 99%, I'd ask what should be in this article. It could have extra information about the traditon subspecies or conservation efforts on particular populations, but I think this is better covered in two articles on the currently recognised subspecies (at the scientific names).
An alternative and more scientifically justified use of African lion would be as the common name for extant Panthera leo. Modern lions all descended from the population bottleneck in Africa several hundred thousand years ago. This would distinguish the lions from older fossil lions elsewhere, as well as the cavelions and north American lions. The Asiatic lions would be descended from a very recent migration of thse African lions into Asia. I don't propose Wikipedia follows this usage as it isn't widely used, but it helps illustrate why African lion is an poor article title.    Jts1882 |  talk  09:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There should actually be three main articles for "modern lions": this one (African lion), Asiatic lion (already exists) and another article for the extinct populations of lions in southern Europe closely related to African lions and Asiatic lions. There is an article called "History of lions in Europe"; this article should be renamed "European lion". Jrheller1 ( talk) 17:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jrheller1: did you see the material about the subspecies? The split between the two is noted here on this map File:Lion subspecies distribution3.png. Are you saying delete or merge the subspecies pages? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply
There should be enough material for each different population of African lions to have its own article. Of course, each population of African lions should be mentioned in the "African lion" article, but with less detail than in the articles for the different populations. Jrheller1 ( talk) 00:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Doesn't really matter if there "should be enough", what matters is why do we need all these articles? Just for the sake of it? FunkMonk ( talk) 01:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Multiple smaller articles (rather than one huge article) is simply a better way of organizing the content. Jrheller1 ( talk) 02:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I agree and besides, the very organisation that reclassified the subspecies as Panthera leo leo (for lions in northern parts of Africa and Asia) and Panthera leo melanochaita (for lions in the southern part) expressed uncertainty over their classification, partly as the two subspecies appear to overlap in the equatorial region of Africa, and this is based on genetic analyses such as this, as mentioned in the article, so how should those lions be treated is something to consider here, and if this article can't be kept, then the information on these lions would have to be kept somewhere else. Leo1pard ( talk) 12:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Stop distorting the source - the source is pretty clear there are two subspecies (folks can read about it on page 72). Hence material on populations with mixed genetic makeup can go in parent article. The rest in subspecies. Simple. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Or wherever appropriate, where it concerns the lions in part of the map of Page 72 where a question mark was placed, or similar cases. There could be brief mentions where lions of the northern subspecies P. l. leo overlap or coexist with lions of the southern subspecies P. l. melanochaita in each of the articles, not too much. Leo1pard ( talk) 13:40, 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. Consensus here is for deletion. North America 1000 09:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

DaDa (school)

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

Does not seem to have the significant independent coverage from multiple reliable sources expected of a WP:NCORP. Currnet coverage is funding (not significant), rehashed press releases (not independent), and/or not from an RS. Better sources were not located when doing a BEFORE. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep waving away 16 sources including Forbes and others that discuss this fairly large business make one wonder if any business is entitled to a wikipedia page if they have not been part of some big controversy. Legacypac ( talk) 20:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I am happy to explain my evaluation of any of the sources, which I did in summary form in the nomination. Forbes can be a good example of the kinds of problems with the sources and so I'll go in depth. It was written by a Forbes contributor which per current consensus is not a reliable source; I see no reason in Ms. Jones's biography to suggest she is an expert in this area which would lend some validity to her writing even if still presenting issues with editorial process making it fall short of RS. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:48, 6 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

TODALS

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

Unsourced since 2006 (and no reliable references found); supposedly an acronym for geography education. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This sounds like a mnemonic for something cartography students were told to do in a class. It is not a suitable encyclopaedia topic. It is not even worth merging anywhere unless it has widespread educational use, which does not appear to be the case. The article is not even correct. A map doesn't need all those things to be useful. It may need them to get a passmark, but it doesn't necessarily need them to be useful. Spinning Spark 23:06, 6 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) 10:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

World Beer Cup

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

This has been self-sourced promotional spam (or maybe fancruft) since the day it was created until today. The prod tag was stripped by someone who had never edited this before or after; the speedy-spam tag was stripped with an edit note that misrepresents the criteria, so here we are. The only sources are SPS spam and it has been tagged for better sourcing for seven years. It was even more bloated up until a few days ago eg here. This page is a proxy for the sponsor and per WP:PROMO that is not what WP is for. (The #1 and #3 biggest contributors by bytes per the revision history are promotional SPA accounts, btw: Jebfoster and CrazyCharly). Please remove this garbage from mainspace. Jytdog ( talk) 19:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per K.e.coffman ( talk · contribs) or delete. Smallbones( smalltalk) 21:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Absolutely keep and rewrite as necessary. The World Beer Cup, together with the Great American Beer Festival, are the two most highly regarded beer competitions in the United States, and getting an award from either of them automatically promotes a brewery to a higher level of notability. We who write about beer have used this award as evidence of notability for a brewery for a long time. I will take a look at the article when I have time and see if I can improve it, but it is a definite keeper. MelanieN ( talk) 17:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply
OK, I've made some improvements and added some independent sources. One of the problems in sourcing this article is that the Cup gets a ton of coverage, but not about the Cup competition itself; it is from regional newspapers trumpeting the Cup awards given to breweries in their region or state. But I found evidence that it is the largest competition in the beer industry and is called "the Olympics of beer". -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:17, 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 redirect to Dots per inch. Consensus to not keep, but no consensus to merge, so this is a compromise solution. Mergers, if supported by consensus, can take place from the history. Sandstein 12:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

DPI scaling in Windows

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

This is small print in the manual stuff, I don't think it merits an article. There may me a redirect/merge target? TheLongTone ( talk) 13:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply

It does deserve an article - Windows' DPI scaling has a history and indeed (still) gets improvements with every release. Leaderboard ( talk) 14:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Well you wrote the article, of course you think it should be retained. But you still make no credible claim of notability, and the sources do not suggest it either. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
You're suggesting that my point has no value... Well it's notable because it explains how DPI scaling in Windows evolved (from Windows 95's simple font scaling, to Windows 10's multi-mode scaling combining ideas from Windows Vista and XP). In fact, I 'forked' it from the main DPI scaling article because I felt that article didn't cover enough of Windows' scaling methods. Leaderboard ( talk) 14:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 16:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I assume the main article referred to is Dots per inch. From what Leaderboard has said we may have a WP:CFORK and WP:COPYWITHIN which might require resolution. I confess when I first seen the article my thoughts were quite interesting and useful for me (and probably notable). But the preferred option may be merge unless shown to be disruptive or would give undue weight on the target article. (NB: I am not volunteering do do any merge) and a merge by the creator might risk WP:UNDUE and not be welcome on the source. Awaiting comments by others really. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 21:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Dots per inch, since this article seems to share some prose with that article, and it's an appropriate merge topic. I don't think this topic is notable by itself, from doing some searches. Enterprisey ( talk!) 23:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
That section is simply a summary; it undermines the importance and history of Windows' DPI scaling which has evolved over the years. Leaderboard ( talk) 14:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or incubate: We have a WP:SPLITOUT however content has been copied without attribution as required by WP:PROSPLIT/ WP:COPYWITHIN and has remained that way for weeks since my early comment about this. There is no consensus between author of this article and others about merging content back to Dots per inch. Given the violation and the contentiousness of the splitout and the possible merge back in I think the violation needs to win and then content can be re-introduced under discussion with gained consensus or via AfD. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 14:44, 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 12:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Lower Cape Fear Hospice

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

Not sure what makes this hospice particularly notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article. The very article says it only has a "few employees" and nothing notes an extraordinary contribution or accomplishment. MartinezMD ( talk) 15:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

It's clearly a very significant healthcare organisation in Wilmington with lots of independent coverage. It has 150 employees, and 325 volunteers according to the article. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
I came across those as well - just lots of death notices etc. Any notable/outstanding references? MartinezMD ( talk) 15:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
What evidence? That's my point. There isn't any in the article to demonstrate its notability and a search doesn't turn anything up. The limited sources demonstrate a mundane operation, no different than another common hospice. I'll readily withdraw my nomination for deletion if there's some substance to notability MartinezMD ( talk) 19:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • If your case is that hospices are inherently not notable this is not the place to make your case. The evidence is fairly clear that this is a large and significant provider of healthcare which has attracted a lot of coverage. There are 4 independent stories, and I'm sure there are more to be had. It's not necessary to establish that this is more significant than other hospices - though actually this article has better references than some of the others. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • My point is that the sources provided is not "significant" coverage as required per WP:GNG. Any general community institution is not notable unless is meets WP:GNG. And I have asked you before, and will ask again specifically, which source(s) do you think provides notability? I have no problem with the article's existence if there are appropriate sources. MartinezMD ( talk) 21:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There just isnt enough to meet WP:NONPROFIT, or WP:GNG. Sure, there are quite a few passing mentions in local newspapers, but its as a charity to donate to, or because the interviewer has talked to someone who works there about a general healthcare issue. There aren't any in depth or significant articles about the hospice itself. I can see Rathfelder has done quite a bit of work, but the notabilty just isnt there. Curdle ( talk) 14:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • A large number of passing references can build up a picture of notability. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:33, 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 no consensus. Sources have been presented. The discussants are unable to agree on whether the sources are reliable or not, and it doesn't appear additional discussion will result in a consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Eddie Dennis

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

Non-notable wrestler, fails WP:GNG Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 13:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 13:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Galatz - Did you take a look at any of the sources given? National newspapers have gone into serious depth regarding the wrestler, specifically the mirror, daily star, Wales Online, Metro, and The Sun.
If that isn't a suitible level of coverage, I'm not sure what is. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
I did review them. Firstly The Sun is listed as not reliable on WP:PW/RS. Second, the other 4 only are to talk about the same thing, a teacher becoming wrestler. 3 out of the 4 deal are from the exact same period of time. To me makes the sourcing WP:1E. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 13:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Actually, those sources do talk about him leaving being a teacher, but those are simply retrospect, and are in-depth from notable reliable independent sources. How about this interview with fightful? There's also sources regarding his coverage of his feud with Mark Andrews as well as mentions everywhere like vulture hound, Last word on pro wrestling.
It should also be mentioned, that BBC Wales actually did a program on him. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Procedural? What process was not followed? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 14:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Apologies, better word chosen. I was simply noting that I was the creator of the article, and thus why I was voting keep. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 02:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:08, 6 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 deleted. ( non-admin closure) Iffy★ Chat -- 14:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Angelo Dawkins (wrestler)

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

This article was nominated and deleted a few months ago. Nothing changed, except he won a title in a independent promotion. I think Fails WP:ENT Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelo Dawkins HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 18:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 18:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:55, 6 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 deleted. ( non-admin closure) Iffy★ Chat -- 14:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Montez Ford (wrestler)

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

This article was nominated and deleted a few months ago. Nothing changed, except he won a title in a independent promotion. I think Fails WP:ENT Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montez Ford. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 18:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 18:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:56, 6 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. Anarchyte ( talk | work) 12:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

House On The Rock (Church)

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

WP:ARTSPAM moved from Draft's by coi creator. Tagged for CSD for G11 but CSD "declined" by non admin. While I had not decided to G11 it before it was detagged, I would like y'all to look at it and decide as I think it needs deletion as promospam and is beyond salvage. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 17:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Potential Keep -- If the content is correct, this is more like a denomination than a local church. If so we ought to have an article on it. This is a poor article, but that is not a reason for deletion. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a sizeable denomination with 50branches as per previous consensus on denominations, will need anti_spam cleanup, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 15:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. Agree with Atlantic306. Although none of the sources provided are reliable, but with a quick web search the subject matter seem to have additional and reliable sources.

Is Nutin 07:36, 12 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. Sandstein 21:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Girls of Latitude

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

Article about a one-off television documentary special, not properly sourced as notable per WP:TVSHOW. This has no serious notability claim besides the fact that it existed, and even though it aired a full decade ago the only reference that has ever been added at all is its own self-published press release about itself rather than any evidence of media coverage. As always, what we're looking for on Wikipedia is verification of notability, not just verification of existence -- but nothing here constitutes evidence of notability at all. Bearcat ( talk) 17:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:58, 6 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) 09:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

2017 Kandel stabbing attack

AfDs for this article:
2017 Kandel stabbing attack (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another article in the German Refugee Crime walled garden. This one survived AfD on the basis that it would prove to be a watershed moment that would change German immigration policy. But the failure of it to meet WP:SUSTAINED subsequently suggests this was false. While it's a more marginal case than the other nominees in this group, it still at best marginally in line with WP:EVENTCRIT and its failure in WP:SUSTAINED make me think it should be deleted. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:15, 6 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. Despite being potentially ironic in doing so, there is strong consensus that notability is established (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

WalkAway campaign

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

This is just a hashtag that went viral. Of the RS that report on it, a WaPo "analysis" piece suggests it's not meaningful [28], a CNN op-ed says that the popularity of the hashtag was inflated by Russian trolls [29], and Snopes found that photos associated with the movement were stock photos [30]. The rest of the sources look unreliable, with the exception of Fox (which is considered a RS on the RS noticeboard) but which has a clear anti-Dem bias [31]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

  • I forgot to mention this but two of the three sources are not straight-news reporting but rather op-eds and analysis pieces, and both of those pieces dispute that the hashtag is notable. The third source (Snopes) on a similar line suggests that the popularity of the movement is artificially inflated. So, of the three RS, they are all effectively about how this movement is not notable. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Snooganssnoogans, notable means "worthy of notice", and in Wikipedia terms that's determined by coverage in reliable sources. So reliable sources arguing that something is not notable are, ironically, proving that it is notable. And the NY Post and the Fox articles are not opinion pieces. Brad v 15:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Changing "comment" to "keep". No valid deletion reason given. Brad v 16:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is the first I've heard of this, and I appreciate that Wikipedia has an apparently neutral article on the topic. Don't confuse "notable" with "real". If astroturfing is sufficiently widespread to get noticed by mainstream media, that seems to make it notable to me. This wouldn't be notable if the media felt that there was no need to debunk it. See also Pizzagate. – wbm1058 ( talk) 15:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a real campaign. It may not be a very successful campaign, but to conflate the success of the campaign with the notability of the campaign is just POV-pushing. It's not even good POV-pushing; if you delete any mention of a thing from the reliable media, people aren't going to think "oh well, I guess this is a thing I'm not supposed to know about", they're going to go to the unreliable media. Chi Sigma ( talk) 16:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:17, 6 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) Sam Sailor 11:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

2018 Amsterdam stabbing attack

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

Another page from the German Refugee Crimes walled garden. This one branches out a bit and is a Dutch refugee crime page instead. Same issues with WP:SUSTAINED and WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS as the other articles in this grouping. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It isn't a "refugee crime" as you are downplaying it, it was the first terrorist attack in the Netherlands since 2001 (according to Dutch intelligence agency's) and therefore a significant event. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to get articles like this deleted by lying that it is about an ordinary crime. Terrorist attacks are no ordinary crimes. It did get a lot of media attention in the Netherlands but of course it doens't get media coverage all the time since the criminal trial takes a long time. It gets media coverage every time there are new details. Histogenea22 ( talk) 17:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    I would suggest you should review WP:BATTLEGROUND and redact the bits of your statement just now that violate WP:NPA. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Now, notwithstanding that rough start, I'd posit that there's nothing about WP:EVENTCRIT that makes a crime purportedly motivated by terrorism any more or less notable than any other crime. In this case it was an attack on two people. Regardless of the motive of the attacker, two guys getting stabbed may be shocking, but absent any sort of significant sustained coverage of the event that demonstrates lasting encyclopedic significance, it's just another shocking crime. In this case, it's literally, at worst, an attempted murder as neither victim was killed. Nor was the suspected attacker. This is not notable per WP:NOTNEWS and invoking the spectre of terrorism does not make it moreso. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The attacker left a will and did not expect to survive the stabbing spree. Unfortunately there are frequent attempts by extremists and and their apologists to downplay the significance of failed attacks, while the former celebrate large-scale attacks with a multitude of victims. Since the assailant survived, a trial is certain to take place. AadaamS ( talk) 06:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I would caution you that WP:BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia including talk pages and AfD discussions. Referring to a suspect of a crime as "the assailant" prior to the trial could be considered a WP:BLP violation. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Wide international coverage in August/September 2018 close to the event. Continuing coverage in October -e.g. - [32] [33]. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now per WP:RAPID: terrorist attacks are not "routine incidents" in Europe and it's unlikely they ever will be considered so. Terrorist attacks and subsequent trials generate long-term media attention once they are concluded. A trial is certain to take place as the attacker survived being shot by police, despite the expectation of the assailant who wrote a will prior to going on the murdering spree. Per WP:COMPETENCE, terrorist incidents in EU countries are summarized and reported in annual reports by Europol. AadaamS ( talk) 06:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • What does WP:COMPETENCE have to do with whether an assault that may have been motivated by religion constitutes a "terrorist incident"? Or do I need to break out statistics on frequency of knife attacks in Europe to demonstrate that sometimes people get stabbed and it's generally not notable? Simonm223 ( talk) 15:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    For whatever reason, it would seem that alleged attacks, that were allegedly ideologically motivated, against strangers (and all the more so - foreign tourists) garner much more coverage in RSes than other attacks. It also seems, for whatever reason, that police attempt to foil such alleged attacks as they allegedly did here - allegedly shooting the alleged assailant within 9 seconds of the start of the alleged stabbing (see BBC which for some reason does not deem alleged to be a necessary qualifier in this case). Our personal value judgement on the editorial choices made by RSes who have chooen to cover this incident (while not covering various other incidents) is irrelevant for notability - what is relevant is coverage. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Except that WP:NOTNEWS limits the extent to which coverage matters, as does WP:EVENTCRIT which expressly excludes shocking crimes unless they're shown to have broader impacts. The only broad impact here is getting racists excited. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Not a routine event. Coverage (international coverage, continuing coverage) clearly pegs WP:EVENTCRIT(2) - Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    I think we have a fundamental disagreement over what constitutes widespread impact. I mean, has the Netherlands banned knives? Has there been any other policy change? Any shift in international relations? No? Ok, no widespread impact. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Assessing impact is a matter of OR and POV (though in this case this did result in a US travel advisory). EVENTCRIT(2) does not require such an assessment, and generally the existence of continued coverage implies a lasting effect. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • All terrorist attacks in Europe that have either succeeded or been foiled at major transportation hubs have standalone articles due to WP:SIGCOV because they are well-known places with uncounted international travellers passing through. They generate a lot of analysis and publications in WP:RS.
  • If the victims release a letter via the US Embassy thanking police and hospital staff for saving their lives, it is logical that they were in a life-threatening situation. Many people have been killed in terrorist knife-attacks in Europe over the last few years. It does indeed happen that lethal violence is trivialized by extremists and their apologists simply because more victims survice injuries that would have been life-threatening two decades ago. This is of course thanks to the improving skills of medical expertise, not due to any imagined harmlessness of hypothetical attackers. AadaamS ( talk) 19:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    @ Icewhiz: That's funny. Because that's not at all what the actual words of the actual policy say. @ AadaamS: "All terrorist attacks have..." is WP:OSE covered. Also I still challenge that you can call a stabbing for which the trial has not concluded in which nobody was killed a terrorist attack on the basis of a prosecutor's report of a suspect's possible motive. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Strong keep, wide international and continuing coverage.-- Greywin ( talk) 21:35, 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 keep. Overall consensus is for article retention. North America 1000 10:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

2018 Hamburg stabbing attack

AfDs for this article:
2018 Hamburg stabbing attack (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another article in the German Refugee Crime walled garden. It doesn't meet WP:SUSTAINED guidelines for WP:NOTNEWS and per WP:EVENTCRIT does not appear to have had any lasting effect. While any example of misogynistic domestic violence is terrible it is also sadly common, and selecting this one for encyclopedic treatment because the victim was a white woman while the suspected assailant was not is not something Wikipedia should be doing. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. This is much easier to assess than the partner article currently nominated for deletion. Stabbings are, sadly, common throughout Europe and America and rarely merit a mention in the encyclopedia. The efforts to liken this crime to others committed in Germany recently by immigrants simply serve to illustrate how commonplace the particular incident is. The fact that there is no corresponding article in German wikipedia underlines this. Deb ( talk) 15:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Clear consensus to keep on 21 April 2018 due to very wide international coverage around the time of the event (which was gruesome - the beheading or near beheading of a baby and killing the mother as well in a crowded subway station). There has been continued international coverage due to claims of German censorship, [35] [36] which seem to be false. [37] There is also continuing German national level coverage - [38] [39] [40] - thus we meet WP:NCRIME due to sustained national(+) level coverage. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    I will also note that there is no evidence presented for the assertion that per nom this was "selecting this one for encyclopedic treatment because the victim was a white woman while the suspected assailant was not is not something Wikipedia should be doing" - which seems to be an assertion regarding the motivations of the editors involved in the article to date. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    It's fairly clear that the article creator has a political agenda - he has been quite open about it in the past. But, leaving that aside, no one seems able to explain why editors on German wikipedia have not felt strongly enough to create an article in their own language on this supposedly important topic. Deb ( talk) 15:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Experienced editors generally avoid creating articles on subjects that may be deleted. In my own cross-wiki editing experience I've run across situations in which articles clearly passed a SNG on one wiki and did not in another. Regardless - cross-wiki arguments are usually fairly weak (this goes both ways - also for "keep, this exists in wiki X") - the exceptions being a superbly sourced article on another wiki (the sources establishing notability - not the article) or a situation in which there are many-many cross wiki links (with caveats here as well - e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliad Bar was present on some 5 wikis - created by the same user - possibly to strengthen notability)). Icewhiz ( talk) 16:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ E.M.Gregory: What's ad hominem? You linked a web page from a group noted for being deeply anti-islamic and very lose with the truth as a source to establish the notability of an article that was created as a WP:COATRACK for the article creator's political views on immigration, with an example of that belief cited above by Deb. Had you not shared that deeply offensive link I would not have commented on it. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I deleted irrelevant details about the demographics of the suspect that only matter if you subscribe to the position that the national origin of the criminal is in any way relevant or notable to any non-hate-crime. Which I don't. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • User:E.M.Gregory, kindly don't accuse me of things I didn't do. I deleted one short paragraph purporting to deal with "similar" crimes which actually were only considered similar by one source - this is POV editing. When the paragraph was repeatedly replaced, I reworded it to put it into context. At no point did I delete a large swathe of text, nor did I delete any sources. Deb ( talk) 16:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • An entire section - 13:54, 6 November 2018 - which seems well sourced - was deleted on the spurious claim that the suspect (or technically more accurate - the accused) was called a perpetrator. It is not clear that sources do not treat the accused, who confessed, [43] as a perpatrator - bild seem to be calling him a "Messer-Killer" (knife killer) in their own voice - but regardless - the alleged BLPCRIME concern could've been dealt with a simple replacement of the word - rather than section blanking. We generally do not delete large swathes of an article concurrent to AfD unless there are urgent policy reasons to do so (i.e. clear and glaring BLP vios). Icewhiz ( talk) 16:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
It does seem to me that, once you start speculating on a perpetrator's motives in an article, using the prosecution's words to do so, you are treading on dangerous ground, BLP-wise. In the UK - I don't know about Germany - an accused could claim that they were unable to get a fair trial if there was widespread repeating of such accusations in the media. Deb ( talk) 16:28, 7 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. Despite the AfD being open for some time, no one has provided any sources to say why this is a notable match. Simply that it is a country's first does not make it inherently notable if there has been no reporting beyond routine match reports. Not sure there is anything worth merging to the Balkan cup article at the moment. Fenix down ( talk) 08:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply

1946 Albania v Yugoslavia football match

1946 Albania v Yugoslavia football match (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability at all. Fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to 1946 Balkan Cup, if another source can be found to support the information (just a match database at the moment, the Serbian link is broken.) It doesn't state it was the opening match of the 1946 Balkan Cup in the article. The stadium's inauguration is also interesting, and some mentions of the event can be listed there. I thought this might be best covered in period sources but couldn't find any mentions of it online and in Serbo-Croatian, which admittedly is a small sample size, but Yugoslavia and Albania had decent relations in 1946 and there's undoubtedly coverage of it somewhere - the Albanian historical football site has photos from two of the other matches in the tournament. SportingFlyer talk 11:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable match, first matches of England, Scotland etc. also exist. Deleting this would be a discriminate act of only furthering the systemic bias (not the first instance against Albanian or Yugoslav football topic). Linhart ( talk) 17:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • If the article is deleted, than I don't have to go there as you cannot add sources if the article is nonexistent. My point was that instead of putting AfDs just ping me or others at Wikiproject Yugoslavia or Wikiproject Football and we will gladly provide sources. Linhart ( talk) 20:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:48, 6 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Paathshala play school

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

I was asked to look at this page by a cousin of mine. I am well and truly astonished how such a piece can even exist on Wikipedia. What appalls me is that this piece of promo spam fails to even meet the most lax notability guidelines ( this) yet it has been languishing in article space for more than two weeks !  —  f r  + 14:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Please tell me how this article meets WP:GNG; not every school is notable enough for an article Spiderone 10:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Summit Bisht, what matters here on Wikipedia is the availability of extensive reliable third party coverage of the school. If such sources cannot be found then the article should be deleted as per policy  —  f r  + 16:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Comment - This article is for a really good cause...it is about a school which is giving education to the children also there are relevant evidence related to this school you can talk about this on paathshala play school talk page thanks-- Summit Bisht ( talk) 06:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Please note that this user has voted keep on two occasions Spiderone 10:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Spiderone and Summit Bisht: - I've struck the 2nd keep and replaced with a "comment" - obviously if the editor wants to change it to anything other than another !vote they can, I just felt it a reasonable standing replacement. Nosebagbear ( talk) 18:59, 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 Wrong forum. While AfDs can occasionally result in redirects or mergers, this forum is only for proposing deletions. Proposing mergers or redirects happens on the article talk page. Sandstein 21:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Tom de Beer

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

Redirect to Afrikaner Broederbond and merge content. Does not satisfy gng. It is not clear how notability can be justified. 1l2l3k ( talk) 13:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Close the nominator does not need AfD for the proposed editorial action. Discuss on talk or just be bold. Legacypac ( talk) 13:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect. This is one of a set of articles created by the same editor, so that each of the past Afrikaner Broederbond leaders have an article about them. However not all leaders are equal - some justify an article about them, some do not. In this case, while the article is well researched most sources are used to verify facts about de Beer, and the only significant coverage towards notability is the mg.co.za article, which is primarily about the organisation. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 14:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Notability

I first of all, do not know Tom de Beer. I do not belong to the Afrikaner Bond or its predecessor, the Afrikaner Broederbond. I didn’t write the articles on either of the two”bonds”. The Afrikaner Broederbond was written about in the printed media and newspaper quite frequently. The influence it had over the South African Government of the day was well documented and all Presidents and Prime Ministers were members. The organization, although being secretive is definitely notable, maybe even a bit controversial. Being the last leader of the organisation makes it as notable as it leaders were through the years. The leaders were all, politicians, Afrikaners leaders, chancellors and rectors of universities. De beer was chairman of Gencor, one of the biggest mining companies in the world. He was also chairman when the Afrikaner Broederbond changed to the Afrikanerbond and remained chairman of the Afrikanerbond until 2000. This change was at the same time that South Africa became a true democratic country, with the abolishment of Apartheid. De Beer led the organisation to become, not secretive, non-sexist and non-racial. In the context of South Africa, pre and post 1994, the Afrikanerbond and Afrikaner Broederbond played together with its leaders a notable roll in South Africa diverse history and are well documented. Barry Ne ( talk) 14:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

A redirect is basically a deletion. This is not a misuse of the AfD, actually I think this is the best place to have this discussion for notability. -- 1l2l3k ( talk) 15:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
A redirect is nothing like a deletion. They have nothing whatsoever in common. Deletions destroy the edit and version history. Redirects do not. Any editor can redirect an article in the course of ordinary editing or can undo a redirect. Redirecting an article is normal part of BRD. Deletions can only be done by admins and cannot generally be undone. Really, if you want to redirect the article just go do it. If there's pushback discuss it on the talk page. That's how we do redirects. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 17:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
At this point I would like this discussion to have an admin decision. Otherwise one day someone will wake up, remove the redirect and reinstate the article. Why not have a decision since we're at it? -- 1l2l3k ( talk) 14:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Admins can't enforce the existence of redirects. It's just not a power they have. Suppose this gets closed by an admin as "redirect" and then some editor goes and redirects the article. Another editor could undo the redirect right after and start a conversation. Nothing is gained from this AfD no matter how it closes, which is why it's a waste of everyone's time. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 14:19, 9 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. Bordering on keep. Sandstein 21:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

2018 Freiburg gang rape

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

Page covers an event that falls under WP:NOTNEWS. At article talk, the only editor willing to defend the existence of the article could not justify how it met criteria for WP:EVENTCRIT. Article is part of a walled garden on crimes in Germany with refugee suspects and there have been repeated attempts to link it in copy to unrelated crimes on the basis that suspects investigated by the police include refugees when there is no other correlation between the crimes. Little evidence of sustained coverage. No media coverage outside of routine crime reportage in the German press. Simonm223 ( talk) 13:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 13:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 13:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per #4 of WP:EVENTCRIT. While the claim is "shocking", rape is sadly common, and there is not much reason to believe that this one will hold significance in the longer term. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This is terribly difficult. The topic does have basic notability. What it does not have is balance, either in its content or in the sources quoted, and particularly in terms of the significance claimed for it. The fact that certain sections of the German media may be guilty of equally unbalanced reporting doesn't make it okay for us to follow their lead. It is one element in a systematic campaign by one or two editors to ensure that crimes committed in Germany by immigrants get maximum publicity in English-language sources whilst similar crimes committed by native Germans get none. Frankly, if the crime figures for Germany really reflected what the article creator would like to claim, then it would not be significant in context, as is evinced by the fact that there was no article on the subject in German Wikipedia until 2 November, when an anonymous user created one. (It could be coincidental that the creator of the article we are currently discussing, a native German speaker, was blocked from this Wikipedia earlier on that day.) Failing deletion, I would propose a redirect to the existing article, Immigration and crime in Germany, which already lists many such crimes individually. Deb ( talk) 14:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • On the contrary, it is extremely difficult to achieve balance in an article like this; I should know, I have actually tried, and have been reverted at every turn. Deb ( talk) 16:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
@ AadaamS: We've heard this story before, "this time there will be government action." Only per WP:CRYSTAL that's not a reason for notability. And I'll point out that I asked you several times at article talk to explain how this meets WP:EVENTCRIT and you refused to do so. Simonm223 ( talk) 23:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
In fact when I asked you about WP:EVENTCRIT here, you asked me to take this to AfD rather than providing a justification at article talk. Simonm223 ( talk) 23:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Simonm223: it was you who first mentioned an AfD and it is the better way to resolve a notability dispute as it involves more editors. So thanks for the nomination I will of course happily abide by the outcome of the AfD. AadaamS ( talk) 06:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
@ AadaamS: I'm simply pointing out that I gave you ample opportunity to explain the notability before posting an AfD and you asked me to post the AfD rather than do so. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:39, 7 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 21:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Singapore Linux User Group

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

Failing WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Also WP:NOTDIR. It seems there is at least one other "Linux User Group" in Singapore. The one accessible from the external links in article Linux user group is a different one. So possible fork/promo. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Addendum: The creator of the article and the contact for the user group appear to be the same person, so highly likely WP:COI and promo. See this diff and the FB page accessible via the group's website linked in the article.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui  雲 水 11:21, 6 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. Consensus is clear that this is a probable hoax and would be non-notable in any case. In addition to the other evidence of a hoax, note that this article is the creator's only contribution, which in the case of a suspected hoax is always a major red flag. Closing early per WP:SNOW and because the probable hoax is already propagating across the Internet. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Clancy Osei Konadu

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

No idea why this was accepted like this at AfC by User:Legacypac. First source doesn't mention subject, third and fourth source are about an obviously different Konadu, which leaves us with a report of a U-17 match, which, surprise, doesn't mention this person either.

Worse, Clancy Osei Konadu seems to missing from all reliable sources, and even from all non user-generated sources [47], which gives the strong impression that this is a hoax. At the very best, this is an utterly non notable player who completely fails WP:NSPORTS, with sources in the article which don't meet WP:V for the subject, and no other sources about him available. Fram ( talk) 09:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

If this fails WP:FOOTY delete the page but if it meets that standard (which it seems to) keep. FOOTY is a stupid notability threshhold that opperates as a bright line. Normal notability standards like NSPORTS don't apply. The best way to sort out FOOTY, which covers a confusing sport with tons of levels of play, is to expose the page to subject matter experts who tag and assess these pages quite quickly. See my comments on the talkpage. Also, I urge you to stop stalking my edits because that is harassment and sanctionable. Legacypac ( talk) 09:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Legacypac, perhaps slow down and read the actual complete deletion nomination instead of this instant reply which misses the point? None of the sources at the time you accepted this article mention the subject, and no reliable sources about the subject seem to exist. Which makes this probably a WP:HOAX. Your reply completely fails to address this major problem. And I would be a very poor admin if I came across this article and not acted upon it. Fram ( talk) 10:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I read the nom. Keep or delete is based on the existence of sources and notability guidelines. If you can prove the page is a hoax, than prove it. If it was an obvious hoax it would have been speedied as such. Legacypac ( talk) 10:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:19, 6 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 21:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

NAGA Group AG

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

Puffed-up advertisement for cryptocurrency exchange. Sourcing has been improved - but there's still very little RS coverage (lots of bitcoin blogs), and most refs are non-RSes or tangential. Declined PROD; the decliner attempted to fix the article, but if these are the best references available then it clearly fails WP:CORP. David Gerard ( talk) 08:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 08:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 08:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 08:05, 6 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. While there are hoax fears, there seems a reasonable consensus that until that is conclusively demonstrated Wiki should opt for the balance of sources which indicates real existence. In the event of *significant* new evidence demonstrating a hoax then this can always be re-considered. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Woggabaliri

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

Seems to just be one massive (and fairly racist) hoax. TheAwesomeHwyh ( talk) 06:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

As well as making a cheeky joke about soccer in Australia, one that soccer fans should be embarrassed about. HiLo48 ( talk) 06:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep This game was described in the book The Aboriginal Soccer Tribe, by Professor John Maynard [48]. I don't know why that reference is not in the article. As well as the article from the Adelaide Advertiser, which is referenced, there is this one in the Sydney Morning Herald [49]. The rules appear on another Australian government website, as well as the one referenced, here [50]. There are some commentators in Australia, mainly racist shock jocks, who claim it is made up. But the author of the book is Aboriginal himself, and his research, and the 19th century engraving illustrating this article, are genuine. TheAwesomeHwyh, would it be possible for you to withdraw the nomination for AfD? RebeccaGreen ( talk) 12:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Definite keep With anthropological academic peer reviewed references going back to at least 1904 it is hard see how this is fake. Those claiming it is fake will need to do some pretty amazing WP:OR to prove such? Aoziwe ( talk) 12:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have added some references, and also changed the order of sentences in the History section so that the first sentence is now " 'Woggabaliri' was documented prior to 1904 as the Ngunnawal word for "play"." I hope that will help people realise that it is not made up, and it is not a play on 'wogball', which seems to date from the 1970s, and certainly not until after WWII and the arrival of post-war migrants to Australia. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 13:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The references seem adequate. For example, a federal government body, Australian Sports Commission, includes the game in its publications - and has done for decades. Bureaucrats tend to be very careful about stepping on toes! And are very aware of cultural sensitivities around traditional cultural knowledge. So their vetting of the history is probably even stronger than Wikipedia's. yoyo ( talk) 14:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am torn as to the veracity of this article at this stage. There are big issues here that MUST be addressed if this is not going to be permanently seen as a hoax. The name instantly looks to older Australian readers like "wogball", the insulting name for soccer from the 1970s. This makes it look like an anti-soccer joke, and is what has led to this AfD proposal. I'm certainly no expert, but the word doesn't seem like other claimed Aboriginal words. The article needs to explicitly address this point, with words pointing out the apparently "unfortunate" coincidence. The image used in the article is [[File:Marn grook illustration 1857.jpg]]. "Marn grook" is a game recognised as having been played in Victoria's Western District, known to one of the founders of Australian Rules Football, Tom Wills, who lived there, and is therefore seen as a precursor to that game. (So, more of the seeming cheeky joke.) It is used in Origins of Australian rules football, and several other articles. It's presence in this article also makes it seem like a hoax. The pic doesn't belong. The overlap with Marn Grook needs to be mentioned. (NOTE: That article uses the same image!) While these problems exist, this article will continue to look like a hoax. HiLo48 ( talk) 18:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It may be useful to add a section on claims that this is a hoax (which have appeared in the media, too, and can be referenced outside Wikipedia), although I don't know if Wikipedia would see that as appropriate within an encyclopaedia entry (EDIT - there are articles with a section called Hoax Claims, so I will have a go at writing one for this page, though I will need to access sources in order to do that). As for the word not seeming "like other claimed Aboriginal words" - it has a shape very typical of Aboriginal languages (CVCVCVCVCV), and if you look at the 1904 source of the word, you will see that almost all of the verbs end in -i (probably a tense ending), and several others end in -iri. (I am a linguist working with Aboriginal languages in the Northern Territory, and it certainly would not be an unusual word form in many of the languages still spoken.) As to the picture - it was apparently drawn at Merbein, which is considerably further north than the Western District. I note that the Marn grook article says "The indigenous ball game Woggabaliri, which is the subject of William Blandowski's Drawings of 1857". I have not seen the picture in the original book or archive sources myself, so I don't know how much information was recorded about the name of the people depicted, their language, or their name for the game. As the only image of Aboriginal people playing a ball game from that period, it is used to provide evidence that Aboriginal people did play such ball games, not necessarily as an illustration of one or the other. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 01:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the clarification re the typicality of this word as an Aboriginal one. It's good to hear from an expert. I support the idea of a Hoax Claims section, addressing and (hopefully) refuting that possibility. That's what's missing right now. Without it, the claims will continue. HiLo48 ( talk) 01:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. I remain sceptical. There's no doubting the 1904 source, but it wouldn't take a genius to notice the similarities between a word for "play" and the racist euphemism "wogball". It seems the two were only linked together relatively recently. However, the article should reflect the published sources. Doctorhawkes ( talk) 02:54, 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 21:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Harrison J. Fuller

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

16 year old does not pass WP:CREATIVE and was move out of AfC out of process. Legacypac ( talk) 04:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:39, 6 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 21:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Śramaṇa religion

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

WP:CONTENTFORK of Śramaṇa, which already covers the topic of Sramana philosophies; "Śramaṇa religion" is WP:SYNTHESIS, since there was not a single "Śramaṇa religion," but a Sramana movement, with a multitude of religious and philosophical ideas. See also Talk:Śramaṇa religion#Fork of Sramana. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Support delete and salting. The article creator cites some sources that allegedly supports the notability and term "Śramaṇa religion". They do not. The author alleges with the edit commentary "it is synonymous with digambara branch of jainism, similar to the how brahmanism is synonymous with "sanatana dharma" branch of hinduism religion", and then provides the note, see /info/en/?search=Tamil_Jain. Clearly, someone who cites wiki as RS and then edit wars over it, is not serious, likely to reflect CIR and TE concerns. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 03:16, 8 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 21:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Chris Madin

Chris Madin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete: I was quite confused on doing CSD looking to his imdb but i also realize that this article doesn't meet notability as per WP:MUSICBIO. Not have any significance coverage too. So, I left it all on your hands. point out your opinion. TheRedBox ( talk) 04:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment - See Wikipedia's definition of " reliable sources". --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 16:10, 6 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, with pleasure. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Atheta esuriens

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

I can't find any indication this is a valid or generally accepted species name. I checked Google, GBooks, and GScholar to start, and found only the source cited in the article ( [51]). I then checked the four sources used as references for the List of Atheta species (ITIL, Catalogue of Life, GBIF and BugGuide), but none of them mentioned this name. Neither does NCBI Taxonomy Browser. I know we consider species to be inherently notable, but if this isn't an accepted species, can we really apply that standard?

I don't think it's suitable for a redirect since it isn't mentioned on the parent page/isn't confirmed valid yet.

I'm more than happy to withdraw if people with experience in this kind of thing think the single source is sufficient for validity (I'm not an expert by any means, just a backlog gnome armed with PetScan). ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Howdy. Bit of a tricky one, but I'd be tempted to leave it be. The species is subsequently listed in this text which I'd regard as reputable. Given the preponderance of beetle articles which are probably in a similar situation, especially those with recently established bionomials I think this might be a worrying precedent to start deleting if they aren't named elsewhere on the ITIL, GBIF etc. which probably are just taking a while to catch up with the quagmire of Coleoptera taxonomy. Zakhx150 ( talk) 21:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Zakhx15. The listing in the secondary source is sufficient confirmation. Trying to determine the validity of newly established species is not really our role -- tho it can be tempteing because we have quite a number of expert editors s for many areas. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
My concern was mainly that I couldn't find any secondary sources aside from the one published paper - usually I have no trouble finding at least mentions of species names, no matter how obscure. Not sure why that book didn't come up for me, but I'm happy to withdraw given the verification. Thanks, Zakhx150 and DGG. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 7 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 21:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

ESports Award

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

Fails WP:N. Majority of the currently used sources come from websites of unknown reliability. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 01:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - sources currently in article suffer from a number of issues (1st party sources, press releases, obscure sources of unlikely reliability ) that make it not meet the WP:GNG. Will reconsider if better sources are found (though there’s an awful lot of false positives out there with such a generic name.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 8 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 21:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Alexander DeVoe.

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

WP:PORNBIO doesn't include producers or directors, only actors. As such this article doesn't meet notability criteria. GNG not satisfied either. 1l2l3k ( talk) 00:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply


John Pack Lambert Can you tell me y it is non notable Iamheentity ( talk) 14:24, 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. Nobody wants to keep this and the proposed redirect target section does not exist. A redirect can still be created once it does. Sandstein 21:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Eunice Bowman

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

No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG talk 17:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 17:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 17:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Redirect to appropriate list. Most of this article is padded with unrelated trivia about her family such as what ages her parents died and life and death dates of all her children. There's two sentences that tell us "she became the oldest in the country after the death of the previous". All four sources are WP:ROUTINE obituaries Once the strained trivia is removed, even if notable, WP:NOPAGE should apply as this article cannot be expanded beyond born, worked, got married, had kids, got old and then died. CommanderLinx ( talk) 10:41, 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. Nobody wants to keep this and the proposed redirect target section does not exist. A redirect can still be created once it does. Sandstein 21:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Florrie Baldwin

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

No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG talk 17:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 17:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 17:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:54, 30 October 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 longevity milestones for other individuals or arbitrary categories, and trivia fluff about her work, diet and the standard longevity advice. 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 two different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 ( talk) 23:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of British supercentenarians#Florrie Baldwin (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. The nominator notes, "We have tables for this." I recommend that instead of deleting the article's history, we redirect the article to the person's place in the table by adding an anchor to the person's entry. It is useful to preserve the history so that any interested editors can merge content to List of British supercentenarians#Biographies if they think the person deserves more than a mention in the table.

    Cunard ( talk) 03:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:14, 6 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. Nobody wants to keep this and the proposed redirect target section does not exist. A redirect can still be created once it does. Sandstein 21:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Emmeline Brice

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

No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG talk 17:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nothing of note to preserve on this one; would oppose redirect. — JFG talk 11:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:14, 6 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 MTV Classic (U.S. TV network). ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

We Are the Eighties

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

Second nomination. Article unsourced for thirteen years. Previous delete discussion concluded with redirect which was not done for some reason. Mccapra ( talk) 00:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:31, 6 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) 21:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

First Church of Christ, Scientist (Raleigh, North Carolina)

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

No sign of notability. Just a local church. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immanuel Lutheran Church (Hodgkins, Illinois). —DIYeditor ( talk) 06:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Century old churches with handsome buildings can almost always be sourced to establish notability. Advise Nom to include church's webpage [52] in WP:BEFORE searches, because it usually gives a hint about where to look - in this case for article's on the architecture of the Church's Reading Room. Also, with a denomination that was a big deal a century ago, (Christian Science in this case, but also the Presbyterian, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Unitarian and Catholic denominaitons,) but that are now shrinking, it is a fact that a proper search for notability cannot be done without access to a news archive. Rapidly bringing several churches to AfD with cursory nominations is NOT a responsible way to edit an encyclopedia. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
    • I think if establishing notability takes more than access to common search tools the onus is on the creator of the article to introduce sources. To me, what is not responsible is to create a string of article stubs on churches without including any significant reliable secondary coverage. —DIYeditor ( talk) 19:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
      • I wrote this article in 2010 and had not edited it since. I was newer to Wikipedia at that time and I think you should assume good faith over irresponsibility. I had completely forgotten about these articles until you tagged them today. I mostly focus on biographies now anyway. I will gladly improve them, but do not assume I decided to "create a string of article stubs". - Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 20:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
        • @ DIYeditor: Yes, entirely agreed. You must understand that when we joined Wikipedia years ago sourcing was not considered so important as it is now. Many of us created strings of unsourced stubs. It's what editors did then. Describing it as "not responsible" is failing to WP:AGF and assuming that Wikipedia has always been like it is now. It was a much younger project back then and procedures and guidelines were not so well-developed. We just all wanted to create new material as quickly as possible. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk ( talk) 21:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as the building itself is historic (built in 1931). -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 00:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not enough sources to show this passes WP:GEOFEAT and just because it was built in 1931 (not a century old) and that some may find it handsome (I don't) does not make it automatically of historical or cutural interest, as per the notability criteria those buildings that may be "require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." and none have been added to attest to the historical character of this building. Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as two relists have failed to produce sources to support this church's notability. This is one of many, many churches in the US that are "historic" in the sense of "built before now" rather than "notable enough for a Wikipedia article." Bakazaka ( talk) 21:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - with no significant coverage, fails to meet WP:GNG. Three primary sources, and one source that's not really about the building, but uses it to start a discussion about the national church organization itself. A Google search brings up nothing more except routine announcements of events. The building does not seem to be architecturally significant. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Colby Sanford

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

Fails WP:ARTIST, only local coverage and non notable awards. JC7V -talk 22:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:12, 6 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 21:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Kese Alberton

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

Does not pass WP:NPROF. Natureium ( talk) 22:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:12, 6 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_November_6&oldid=1142615315"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 5 November 7 November >

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 keep. North America 1000 09:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Erez Aviram

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

Notability not established per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Geoff | Who, me? 21:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 01:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:27, 6 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Dylan Jones (voice actor)

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

Does not seem to have the kinds of roles which suggest notability per WP:NENT, nor the accomplishments to pass WP:ANYBIO, nor coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 05:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 05:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:27, 6 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 List of Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah characters. The "keep" opinions do not address the reasons for deletion and the issue of source quality. Sandstein 12:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Daya Jethalal Gada

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

Fails MOS:TVCAST or Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Characters_and_other_fictional_elements. Treats character a real person with in-universe information. Covered in List of Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah characters already. Lacks information on in real world sense such as role, development, themes, critical reception etc. In-universe information is already covered in Characters article so I propose merge and redirect to that article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jethalal Gada which was his co-star and similar type of problems. Regards,- Nizil ( talk) 11:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the additional sources. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Aoba47, all above sources are about Disha Vakani who plays the character of Daya Jethalal Gada. There no information on the character itself. Please note it. Fictional character needs references on it in "real-world" sense to have its own article. Above references do not provide it. Thank you,- Nizil ( talk) 16:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your message. I agree with you to an extent. I think that sources on the actress in relation to the character (i.e. casting, their approach to the character, etc.) could be useful, though I agree that more sources directly about the character itself are necessary to address the notability concerns raised in this AfD. I am doubtful that the above sources are enough to support the character having a separate article, though I think it is moving the discussion in a better direction than the more generic "popularity" arguments. I am uncertain about how to vote, as I am uncertain how the language barrier would impact things (I am an American/English native speaker who has never heard of this character or program before). If I had to cast a vote either way, I would argue that a redirect would be more appropriate than deletion. I think it would be helpful to see the keep voters link to articles about the character itself to support their argument better. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Since some people are hell-bent on seeing the "evidence" of the obvious, here -- Adamstraw99 ( talk) 22:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" arguments here don't help with a decision, as they relate to popularity rather than notability. Arguments which address the amount of out-of-universe reference material available would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Adamstraw99, the reference you provided: 5 reasons why you're daya of taarak mehta have nothing on out-of-universe information on this fictional character. I have specifically asked for references on the role, development, themes and critical reception of this fictional character. There are many references on "in-universe" information but we need "real-world" information to have separate article on this fictional character. Please provide such references. Popularity is not questioned, notability to have separate article is questioned. We already have an article on the list of characters of the show.- Nizil ( talk) 06:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As noted in the previous relist, the current Keep !votes have not discussed "real-world" information
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah characters and merge the references to the subsection about the character. I have previously participated in this AfD, but I have chosen to cast a vote to help out. Since none of the "keep" voters have provided further sources on the actual character itself, I do not believe there is enough notability for a stand-alone article. The fact that she is a popular character can be summed up in a short sentence include in the list. This could be a viable search and there is a viable redirect target so I think a redirect is preferable over outright deletion. Aoba47 ( talk) 03:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Aoba47. Sources exist but they're low-quality when it comes to establishing independent, out-of-universe notability. SITH (talk) 13:56, 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 12:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

The Mountain Astrologer

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

No RSes, and no indication of notability. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
I would point out that WP:GNG requires significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. A single mention in an RS and several mentions in decidedly non-RS works from inside the same walled garden do not constitute "significant" or "independent" coverage. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Wait, what were these "multiple books coverage"? I apparently wasn't able to find them. -- tronvillain ( talk) 22:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I'm not finding anything resembling significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Some use as a source and some incidental mentions? Sure. Significant coverage? No. I've found far more about subjects that still weren't notable enough to keep. -- tronvillain ( talk) 22:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk ( talk) 20:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This magazine fails WP:GNG. Literally nothing of the references (which are: a references without a link, second one is the closest to attribute to something but seems like a passing mention, primary stuff and the reference that has nothing to do with the subject) in the article is significant coverage of the subject to account to WP:SIGCOV which counts towards WP:GNG. I was not able to find anything in secondary sources. Regarding as to what Atlantic306 has said, to pass WP:GNG you need to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Not notable. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 10:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. To be honest, I didn't get very far in my research of this. I clicked through to the William White Library Journal reference, where I read, A thoughtful periodical many heads above those found at supermarket checkout lines.... If the best they can say about it is that it's better than The National Enquirer, that's enough for me to say it doesn't belong in wikipedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 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 speedy delete. This qualifies under WP:CSD#A3 because the content of the article was literally just the title rephrased as a complete sentence. -- Kinu t/ c 16:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Kanniayamman Koil Street, Anakaputhur

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

It's a city street with no apparent claim to notability. ... discospinster talk 21:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:42, 8 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lion. There's consensus to not keep this as a separate article. Sandstein 08:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

African lion

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

This article is superfluous to our current profusion of lion articles. As well as lion we have pages on the two main subspecies. This page does not correspond to any taxonomic entity, but covers about 98% of all lions (i.e. all but a tiny population in India). If it exists at all it should be at "lions in Africa" but even then realistically almost all the information should be elsewhere on wikipedia already. These articles are often degraded with many well-meaning edits by people using poor-quality sources as well so often end up being detrimental to the project as a whole. Any excess information that can't fit on the parent page ( lion) could go on one of the subspecies pages (now being determined by a merging process. See Talk:Lion#Proposed_merger_of_Northern_lion_and_Panthera_leo_leo Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Agree. Page title can be used to redirect to main lion page, as in this diff of March 2009. -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 21:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Good idea!! -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 07:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
@ BhagyaMani and Punetor i Rregullt5: How's that supposed to happen? The information here is huge, and it's much more than just about distribution. Leo1pard ( talk) 08:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC); edited 08:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
THIS page is not the purpose of that discussion about how to integrate the info. -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 08:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Then why did you mention it? How are you going to do that if you don't know how to? Leo1pard ( talk) 08:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Continue at Talk:African_lion#No_such_thing_as_the_African_lion. -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 09:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I was already there, but you didn't go there. Leo1pard ( talk) 12:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, this is a highly WP:Notable topic that has been covered in various WP:Reliable sources and contains a lot of information that would be difficult to merge in other pages, which renders this article's nomination for deletion a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. For example, the Cat Specialist group, which revised subspecies in 2017, continued to use the name "African lion" to describe the genetically diverse population of lions in Africa which are split up to northern and southern subspecies, as it continued to use the names of other notable populations that aren't recognized by them as subspecies anymore, and admitted that there was uncertainty over their reclassification of the subspecies, due to a lack of morphological analysis, and the fact that two recently recognized subspecies of African lions apparently overlap in northern parts of East Africa, which is based on the work of Bertola et al., who showed that African lions are divided not just into northern and southern subspecies, but also that these subspecies are divided into different clades, such as snortheastern and southeastern clades within the southern subspecies, which had members that migrated to places where other clades are present to form mixed populations in different parts of Africa. In addition, different results from genetic analyses, such as on lions in Central Africa, show that the division between the northern subspecies isn't always clear, because, for example, though one assessment grouped lions in the northern part of this region, which are supposed to belong to the northern subspecies, separately from lions in Southern Africa, which are supposed to belong to the southern subspecies, another assessment grouped certain lions in northern Central Africa with lions in Southern Africa. This isn't in the main page Lion. Leo1pard ( talk) 07:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC); edited 12:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The extra material relevant to genetic mixing between the two subspecies can be summarised on the lion page easily. What specifically else are you saying couldn't be placed elsewhere? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Casliber, you would refer to certain details that I added to the main article 'overkill', so I wasn't interested in keeping it there. Leo1pard ( talk) 12:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Where did I say this was overkill? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Or not 'overkill', my apologies if that was incorrect, but "over the top". Bearing in mind that genetic analyses have been conducted on different populations, including those that used to be treated as subspecies, do you remember what was said about not keeping that much detail in the main article over here, but to leave it in another article, or articles where this is more relevant? Leo1pard ( talk) 13:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)l edited 13:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I said that in response to this level of detail on former subspecies. A concise note about genetic mixing in 2 or 3 sentences is not overkill. And is all that is needed. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Not as per the reliable sources, which talk about more than just issues like overlap. Another issue that I mentioned us that of migrations of lions belonging to different genetic groups to different parts of Africa, including from the time after the Cat Specialist Group revised subspecies with a note of uncertainty regarding lions in places where different genetic groups are present, and there is more to the African lion than just that which was covered in reliable sources which isn't quite elsewhere, such as what Chardonnet et al. said about lions in a particular country. Leo1pard ( talk) 01:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC); edited 02:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  1. The African Lion
  2. Conservation of the African Lion
  3. Lions of Africa
  4. The Biology of the African Lion
  5. In Search of the African Lion
  6. Africa's Lions'
  7. All about the African Lion
  8. African Lions
Andrew, the African lion is 99% synonymous with lion (apart from a tiny Asiatic population). You get that, right? So what would there be that could only go on an African lion page and not lion nor one of the subspecies? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Casliber, the Cat Specialist Group expressed uncertainty over their classification of subspecies, and it's more to do than just genetic mixing. The fact that the two subspecies share the same continent, and migrate to different parts of it here and there means that the division between the subspecies was shown by genetic analyses like this to be blurry, and you had referred to information that was similar to that as 'overkill'. Leo1pard ( talk) 12:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The lion page is quite broad in scope and, at over 100K, is arguably too large and in need of splitting. Lions once roamed all over the world and so there seems to be plenty of scope to discuss them in a geographical and historical context – see American lion, for example. Any development or restructuring should be done by ordinary editing per WP:PRESERVE and so AfD is not the place for this per WP:NOTCLEANUP. My !vote stands. Andrew D. ( talk) 13:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
FWIW, splitting this article into its earlier constituents (which is probably not something that can be decided here anyway) would actually address the article length issue better than what's proposed above. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 22:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Lion Both the "keep" !votes above seem to have completely ignored the OP, both being based on discrediting a "lack of notability" argument no one made. This behaviour is disruptive, and should be stopped. Obviously this page should exist as a redirect, disambig page or some such, and my money's on the former, per CL. At the very least, if the current article is kept, the title needs to be changed to Lions in Africa, as the current one is misleading and implies something equivalent to African elephant. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
And WP:BITE is not a policy, does not apply to an article created by someone with more than 18,000 edits, and is far less relevant here than WP:BRD: six months ago Leo1pard ( talk · contribs) created a standalone article out of a redirect that had been stable as such for more than 11 years. Additionally, Andrew Davidson ( talk · contribs) may be interested to know that Leo1pard unilaterally merged several other previously standalone articles into this one, [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] either without providing attribution (required by Wikipedia's copyright policy, with the exception of the few where they were the sole noteworthy author) or by removing the contents from the live version of Wikipedia altogether and simply redirecting, which actually runs completely counter to the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Hijiri88 It has already been explained that this is a highly WP:Notable topic that has been covered in various WP:Reliable sources and contains a lot of information that would be difficult to merge in other pages, and the article makes it clear that it's not a single species or subspecies, but a genetically diverse group which are recognised as being divided into different clades and subspecies, with the relevant material, so your argument is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, hence disruptive in itself, and as for the issue of attibution, after being talked to about it, I decided to be more careful about that, and I warn that it was after someone else made an article that was similar to existing articles and refused to listen to what was in discussions that this got created, and I had mentioned this in relevant talk-pages. I have been careful to justify in relevant talk-pages about what I do (see this version for example), and that includes what I did here. Leo1pard ( talk) 12:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC); edited 13:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Your entire response to me was already discredited by my own initial !vote, and actually by Cas Liber's OP comment. Additionally, justifying yourself on the relevant talk pages is no good without broad community consensus, and even with community consensus does not justify the lack of attribution. Nowhere in the page history does it say text was merged from elsewhere on Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Wrong, I did become careful about attribution in this article: [14]. Leo1pard ( talk) 13:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
What about the text written by Altaileopard ( talk · contribs), Troodon58 ( talk · contribs) et al. at Southwest African lion and Transvaal lion, or Bhagyamani at Ethiopian lion and East-Southern African lion? Was that text just removed from the encyclopedia when you redirected the pages? Andrew Davidson might have something to say about that, since this is a rare case when the editor with the "deletionist" position is the one arguing to keep the article currently at AFD. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks for pointing this out, Hijiri88!! I just counted about 4 dozen contributions I added to the Central African lion page, before it was redirected on 7 August, and large parts of this was also copy-pasted into [ African lion on 15 September]. -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 13:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Lion. The current verdant proliferation of lion articles has upsides in that WP by now contains a wealth of interconnected information on the fine-grained genetic and historical research on the species. On the downside, there's a substantial amount of duplication and splitting just because someone wants a separate article on their pet topic. The present instance is sort of the crown species of the problem; nothing that I could see would be lost by consolidating or outright redirecting to Lion. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Elmidae and Hijiri88: Shall I tell you the fuller story that BhagyaMani hasn't told you? Earlier, the articles included Asiatic lion, Barbary lion, Cape lion, Congo lion, Masai lion, Southwest African lion, Transvaal lion and West African lion. Then in July 2017, BhagyaMani made a number of massive removals or reductions of referenced content like these ( [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]), without any justification in the talk-page. In response, I decided to use referenced material that was deleted in West African lion to turn Central African lion into an article, but then BhagyaMani came after, doing the same kind of thing that he did earlier ( [20] [21] [22]), without any justification in the relevant talk-page, until I complained to him about what he was doing, and then he [made a justification for his edit, but he made an allegation that the name wasn't used in any reference], which I debunked by using this reference (which says that Asiatic lions are approximately the same size as Central African lions in body weight, using head-and-body measurements of 6 ft 6 in (198 cm) for two Asiatic lions, with tail-lengths of 2 ft 11 in (89 cm) and 2 ft 7 in (79 cm), and total lengths of 9 ft 5 in (287 cm) and 9 ft 3 in (282 cm)), but then BhagyaMani denies what is in the reference by saying that it doesn't talk about body size, and that is an example of what happens when BhagyaMani realises that certain things that he does contradicts relevant sources. More recently, due to a discussion on subspecies, I decided to create Northern lion and Southern lion, merging information from other articles to them like this, and even BhagyaMani supported that at first ( [23] [24]), but then, without justification on any relevant talk-pages, he changed his mind, and turned Panthera leo leo from a redirect to Barbary lion into an article of its own, using some information which was more or less already present in Northern lion, even though I had, during that period, tried to talk to him about what he was doing, but that did not stop him from doing something similar to Panthera leo melanochaita, which used to be a redirect to Cape lion, before BhagyaMani used some information that was more or less already present in another article, and that is not all that BhagyaMani has done which has made people like me and Punetor i Rregullt5 complain about him, or led to serious issues with pages on lions. Leo1pard ( talk) 16:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC); edited 16:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Honestly - not my circus, not my clown car. I lack the stamina to dig through this tit-for-tat epic. I'm currently only commenting on the issue at hand, which is whether African lion appears surplus to current requirements. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
A bigger issue at hand is that BhagyaMani likes to ignore what others say to him in discussions, and keep pushing his POV here and there, even if it disregards what is in WP:Reliable sources, and worse, he can be rude to others, but people, even administrators, may help him in what he does. Leo1pard ( talk) 16:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC); edited 16:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
AFD is not the place to hash those kind of disputes out. If your argument keeping this article hinges on BhagyaMani being a terrible person, or whatever, then the article cannot be kept. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 20:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Then you should not have brought up the issue of what has been going on all along in these pages on lions, if the AfD is not supposed to be about that. You asked a question about pages like this, and their relationship with different editors, and I answered. Leo1pard ( talk) 01:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC); edited 02:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Umm ... what!? You either merged or redirected a whole bunch of other articles, not all of which were written by you, into this article, then tricked poor Andrew Davidson into thinking this was a WP:PRESERVE issue, when in fact the policy PRESERVE is on the side of this content being returned to its original articles pending consensus for such a merge. If you are challenged in your unilateral action by a single user, the onus is on you to get others to agree with you; you could just say that other user is a disruptive presence and needs to be blocked or TBANned, but do that before the AFD, at one of the other appropriate fora; don't try to do it at AFD. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Do not make allegations such as that I have tricked anybody here, where I had to make major changes like shifting other people's articles to here, I would notify them about it, or if they are inactive, mention it in relevant talk-pages, unless it has already been discussed, and I have already made complaints when necessary if other editors made disruptive edits, including at the ANI, but that did not always stop others from doing the same thing over and over again, and this AfD happened to come up whilst discussions on other articles were taking place, despite warnings that focusing on this article in addition to the others would lead to complications. Leo1pard ( talk) 08:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC) edited 08:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Do not make allegations such as that I have tricked anybody here I'm not going to blame you for not reading the currently live discussion of Andrew Davidson at WP:ANI, but even reading my comments on this AFD would have told you that tricked poor Andrew Davidson into thinking this was a WP:PRESERVE issue was meant to be taken facetiously: I know Andrew is well aware that PRESERVE doesn't apply here but rather would favour restoring all the articles you redirected/merged into this one, and is just pretending PRESERVE (and GNG and all that other stuff) applies here in order to "win" another AFD, and did not mean to imply he had been "tricked" by your not disclosing the history of the case up-front. Your saying things like Then you should not have brought up the issue of what has been going on all along in these pages on lions, if the AfD is not supposed to be about that, on the other hand, is difficult to take as a good-faith joke: I never said any such thing, but rather said you should not be trying to say that since the editor who cast the second non-keep !vote was, according to you, a problem editor whose fault it is that this one article didn't exist years earlier, or whatever it is you are claiming, that this article should be kept, and that such allegations are better taken to ANI. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 08:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I see. Leo1pard ( talk) 08:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep this is a population of lion in Africa that is divided in Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita subspecies. A lot of authors have used the term African lion much more than Lions in Africa. It contains a huge information (like Leo1pard said) about the taxonomy of leo and melanochaita, that the main lion page (even Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita) doesn't contain that much. If this page needs to be deleted, than I think that we can merge it here (as I mentioned above). — Punetor i Rregullt5ALBAN ( talk) 16:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The argument to delete this isn't about notability, and those arguing to keep on those grounds are completely off the mark. The question is one of organization. We have a page about the species; Lion. We have a page about each subspecies (yes, I know there's disagreements about what those pages should be, but we're certainly not looking at less than one page per subspecies). We have pages for the two populations that are biologically distinct; the Cape lion and the Asiatic lion. Lions in Africa, taken together, are not a biologically meaningful category. The African lion page serves no purpose, and if there is in fact information in it that isn't present in the pages about the subspecies or the Cape lion population, it should be merged there. Vanamonde ( talk) 01:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
There are various WP:reliable sources that deal with the subject that establish the subjects WP:Notability, including the very organization which reorganized the list of subspecies, with a note of uncertainty regarding particular African lions which are not of any of the specific types that you described here, for which subspecific classification was difficult due to their complicated genetic makeup, but continued to use the name "African lion", as explained already. Leo1pard ( talk) 01:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC); edited 02:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Hijiri88: Both the "keep" !votes above seem to have completely ignored the OP, both being based on discrediting a "lack of notability" argument no one made. This behaviour is disruptive, and should be stopped.
Leo1pard: It has already been explained that this is a highly notable topic that has been covered in various reliable sources.
Vanamonde93: The argument to delete this isn't about notability, and those arguing to keep on those grounds are completely off the mark.
Leo1pard: There are various reliable sources that deal with the subject and establish the subject's notability.
Leo1pard, this level of IDHT is extremely disruptive. If you keep it up much longer you're going to be TBANned or blocked. This is not a threat, but a warning: I've seen far worse result from less. This article won't be kept if "notable notable notable" is the only argument you can muster, but more importantly than that if this behavioral problem continues elsewhere I have serious doubts about your ability to continue contributing to the encyclopedia. I suggest you give it a rest and actually read the comments to which you are responding.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
If it can be guaranteed that relevant material supported by WP:reliable sources can be kept, either here or elsewhere, then I would support the outcome to have this page changed, depending on what the outcome is, because notability was not the only thing that was discussed. Leo1pard ( talk) 08:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
There you go again, talking about "notability", as though it has anything to do with this discussion. Are you doing this on purpose? If so, you need to stop. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 08:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Alright. Leo1pard ( talk) 08:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Support redirect - every possible grouping of lions doesn't need an article. FunkMonk ( talk) 03:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The term African lion is ambiguous. Lions in African include a number of distinct populations, which if given taxon status would be paraphyeltic with the Asiatic lion. If the article is about lions in African, then the article should be titled Lions in Africa or something similar. Given the overlap between lions in general and lions in Africa is 99%, I'd ask what should be in this article. It could have extra information about the traditon subspecies or conservation efforts on particular populations, but I think this is better covered in two articles on the currently recognised subspecies (at the scientific names).
An alternative and more scientifically justified use of African lion would be as the common name for extant Panthera leo. Modern lions all descended from the population bottleneck in Africa several hundred thousand years ago. This would distinguish the lions from older fossil lions elsewhere, as well as the cavelions and north American lions. The Asiatic lions would be descended from a very recent migration of thse African lions into Asia. I don't propose Wikipedia follows this usage as it isn't widely used, but it helps illustrate why African lion is an poor article title.    Jts1882 |  talk  09:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There should actually be three main articles for "modern lions": this one (African lion), Asiatic lion (already exists) and another article for the extinct populations of lions in southern Europe closely related to African lions and Asiatic lions. There is an article called "History of lions in Europe"; this article should be renamed "European lion". Jrheller1 ( talk) 17:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jrheller1: did you see the material about the subspecies? The split between the two is noted here on this map File:Lion subspecies distribution3.png. Are you saying delete or merge the subspecies pages? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply
There should be enough material for each different population of African lions to have its own article. Of course, each population of African lions should be mentioned in the "African lion" article, but with less detail than in the articles for the different populations. Jrheller1 ( talk) 00:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Doesn't really matter if there "should be enough", what matters is why do we need all these articles? Just for the sake of it? FunkMonk ( talk) 01:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Multiple smaller articles (rather than one huge article) is simply a better way of organizing the content. Jrheller1 ( talk) 02:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I agree and besides, the very organisation that reclassified the subspecies as Panthera leo leo (for lions in northern parts of Africa and Asia) and Panthera leo melanochaita (for lions in the southern part) expressed uncertainty over their classification, partly as the two subspecies appear to overlap in the equatorial region of Africa, and this is based on genetic analyses such as this, as mentioned in the article, so how should those lions be treated is something to consider here, and if this article can't be kept, then the information on these lions would have to be kept somewhere else. Leo1pard ( talk) 12:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Stop distorting the source - the source is pretty clear there are two subspecies (folks can read about it on page 72). Hence material on populations with mixed genetic makeup can go in parent article. The rest in subspecies. Simple. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Or wherever appropriate, where it concerns the lions in part of the map of Page 72 where a question mark was placed, or similar cases. There could be brief mentions where lions of the northern subspecies P. l. leo overlap or coexist with lions of the southern subspecies P. l. melanochaita in each of the articles, not too much. Leo1pard ( talk) 13:40, 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. Consensus here is for deletion. North America 1000 09:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

DaDa (school)

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

Does not seem to have the significant independent coverage from multiple reliable sources expected of a WP:NCORP. Currnet coverage is funding (not significant), rehashed press releases (not independent), and/or not from an RS. Better sources were not located when doing a BEFORE. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep waving away 16 sources including Forbes and others that discuss this fairly large business make one wonder if any business is entitled to a wikipedia page if they have not been part of some big controversy. Legacypac ( talk) 20:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I am happy to explain my evaluation of any of the sources, which I did in summary form in the nomination. Forbes can be a good example of the kinds of problems with the sources and so I'll go in depth. It was written by a Forbes contributor which per current consensus is not a reliable source; I see no reason in Ms. Jones's biography to suggest she is an expert in this area which would lend some validity to her writing even if still presenting issues with editorial process making it fall short of RS. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:48, 6 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

TODALS

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

Unsourced since 2006 (and no reliable references found); supposedly an acronym for geography education. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This sounds like a mnemonic for something cartography students were told to do in a class. It is not a suitable encyclopaedia topic. It is not even worth merging anywhere unless it has widespread educational use, which does not appear to be the case. The article is not even correct. A map doesn't need all those things to be useful. It may need them to get a passmark, but it doesn't necessarily need them to be useful. Spinning Spark 23:06, 6 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) 10:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

World Beer Cup

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

This has been self-sourced promotional spam (or maybe fancruft) since the day it was created until today. The prod tag was stripped by someone who had never edited this before or after; the speedy-spam tag was stripped with an edit note that misrepresents the criteria, so here we are. The only sources are SPS spam and it has been tagged for better sourcing for seven years. It was even more bloated up until a few days ago eg here. This page is a proxy for the sponsor and per WP:PROMO that is not what WP is for. (The #1 and #3 biggest contributors by bytes per the revision history are promotional SPA accounts, btw: Jebfoster and CrazyCharly). Please remove this garbage from mainspace. Jytdog ( talk) 19:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per K.e.coffman ( talk · contribs) or delete. Smallbones( smalltalk) 21:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Absolutely keep and rewrite as necessary. The World Beer Cup, together with the Great American Beer Festival, are the two most highly regarded beer competitions in the United States, and getting an award from either of them automatically promotes a brewery to a higher level of notability. We who write about beer have used this award as evidence of notability for a brewery for a long time. I will take a look at the article when I have time and see if I can improve it, but it is a definite keeper. MelanieN ( talk) 17:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply
OK, I've made some improvements and added some independent sources. One of the problems in sourcing this article is that the Cup gets a ton of coverage, but not about the Cup competition itself; it is from regional newspapers trumpeting the Cup awards given to breweries in their region or state. But I found evidence that it is the largest competition in the beer industry and is called "the Olympics of beer". -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:17, 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 redirect to Dots per inch. Consensus to not keep, but no consensus to merge, so this is a compromise solution. Mergers, if supported by consensus, can take place from the history. Sandstein 12:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

DPI scaling in Windows

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

This is small print in the manual stuff, I don't think it merits an article. There may me a redirect/merge target? TheLongTone ( talk) 13:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply

It does deserve an article - Windows' DPI scaling has a history and indeed (still) gets improvements with every release. Leaderboard ( talk) 14:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Well you wrote the article, of course you think it should be retained. But you still make no credible claim of notability, and the sources do not suggest it either. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
You're suggesting that my point has no value... Well it's notable because it explains how DPI scaling in Windows evolved (from Windows 95's simple font scaling, to Windows 10's multi-mode scaling combining ideas from Windows Vista and XP). In fact, I 'forked' it from the main DPI scaling article because I felt that article didn't cover enough of Windows' scaling methods. Leaderboard ( talk) 14:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 16:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I assume the main article referred to is Dots per inch. From what Leaderboard has said we may have a WP:CFORK and WP:COPYWITHIN which might require resolution. I confess when I first seen the article my thoughts were quite interesting and useful for me (and probably notable). But the preferred option may be merge unless shown to be disruptive or would give undue weight on the target article. (NB: I am not volunteering do do any merge) and a merge by the creator might risk WP:UNDUE and not be welcome on the source. Awaiting comments by others really. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 21:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Dots per inch, since this article seems to share some prose with that article, and it's an appropriate merge topic. I don't think this topic is notable by itself, from doing some searches. Enterprisey ( talk!) 23:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
That section is simply a summary; it undermines the importance and history of Windows' DPI scaling which has evolved over the years. Leaderboard ( talk) 14:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or incubate: We have a WP:SPLITOUT however content has been copied without attribution as required by WP:PROSPLIT/ WP:COPYWITHIN and has remained that way for weeks since my early comment about this. There is no consensus between author of this article and others about merging content back to Dots per inch. Given the violation and the contentiousness of the splitout and the possible merge back in I think the violation needs to win and then content can be re-introduced under discussion with gained consensus or via AfD. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 14:44, 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 12:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Lower Cape Fear Hospice

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

Not sure what makes this hospice particularly notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article. The very article says it only has a "few employees" and nothing notes an extraordinary contribution or accomplishment. MartinezMD ( talk) 15:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

It's clearly a very significant healthcare organisation in Wilmington with lots of independent coverage. It has 150 employees, and 325 volunteers according to the article. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
I came across those as well - just lots of death notices etc. Any notable/outstanding references? MartinezMD ( talk) 15:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
What evidence? That's my point. There isn't any in the article to demonstrate its notability and a search doesn't turn anything up. The limited sources demonstrate a mundane operation, no different than another common hospice. I'll readily withdraw my nomination for deletion if there's some substance to notability MartinezMD ( talk) 19:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • If your case is that hospices are inherently not notable this is not the place to make your case. The evidence is fairly clear that this is a large and significant provider of healthcare which has attracted a lot of coverage. There are 4 independent stories, and I'm sure there are more to be had. It's not necessary to establish that this is more significant than other hospices - though actually this article has better references than some of the others. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • My point is that the sources provided is not "significant" coverage as required per WP:GNG. Any general community institution is not notable unless is meets WP:GNG. And I have asked you before, and will ask again specifically, which source(s) do you think provides notability? I have no problem with the article's existence if there are appropriate sources. MartinezMD ( talk) 21:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There just isnt enough to meet WP:NONPROFIT, or WP:GNG. Sure, there are quite a few passing mentions in local newspapers, but its as a charity to donate to, or because the interviewer has talked to someone who works there about a general healthcare issue. There aren't any in depth or significant articles about the hospice itself. I can see Rathfelder has done quite a bit of work, but the notabilty just isnt there. Curdle ( talk) 14:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • A large number of passing references can build up a picture of notability. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:33, 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 no consensus. Sources have been presented. The discussants are unable to agree on whether the sources are reliable or not, and it doesn't appear additional discussion will result in a consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Eddie Dennis

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

Non-notable wrestler, fails WP:GNG Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 13:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 13:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Galatz - Did you take a look at any of the sources given? National newspapers have gone into serious depth regarding the wrestler, specifically the mirror, daily star, Wales Online, Metro, and The Sun.
If that isn't a suitible level of coverage, I'm not sure what is. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
I did review them. Firstly The Sun is listed as not reliable on WP:PW/RS. Second, the other 4 only are to talk about the same thing, a teacher becoming wrestler. 3 out of the 4 deal are from the exact same period of time. To me makes the sourcing WP:1E. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 13:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Actually, those sources do talk about him leaving being a teacher, but those are simply retrospect, and are in-depth from notable reliable independent sources. How about this interview with fightful? There's also sources regarding his coverage of his feud with Mark Andrews as well as mentions everywhere like vulture hound, Last word on pro wrestling.
It should also be mentioned, that BBC Wales actually did a program on him. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Procedural? What process was not followed? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 14:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Apologies, better word chosen. I was simply noting that I was the creator of the article, and thus why I was voting keep. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 02:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:08, 6 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 deleted. ( non-admin closure) Iffy★ Chat -- 14:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Angelo Dawkins (wrestler)

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

This article was nominated and deleted a few months ago. Nothing changed, except he won a title in a independent promotion. I think Fails WP:ENT Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelo Dawkins HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 18:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 18:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:55, 6 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 deleted. ( non-admin closure) Iffy★ Chat -- 14:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Montez Ford (wrestler)

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

This article was nominated and deleted a few months ago. Nothing changed, except he won a title in a independent promotion. I think Fails WP:ENT Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montez Ford. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 18:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 18:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:56, 6 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. Anarchyte ( talk | work) 12:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

House On The Rock (Church)

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

WP:ARTSPAM moved from Draft's by coi creator. Tagged for CSD for G11 but CSD "declined" by non admin. While I had not decided to G11 it before it was detagged, I would like y'all to look at it and decide as I think it needs deletion as promospam and is beyond salvage. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 17:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Potential Keep -- If the content is correct, this is more like a denomination than a local church. If so we ought to have an article on it. This is a poor article, but that is not a reason for deletion. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a sizeable denomination with 50branches as per previous consensus on denominations, will need anti_spam cleanup, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 15:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. Agree with Atlantic306. Although none of the sources provided are reliable, but with a quick web search the subject matter seem to have additional and reliable sources.

Is Nutin 07:36, 12 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. Sandstein 21:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Girls of Latitude

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

Article about a one-off television documentary special, not properly sourced as notable per WP:TVSHOW. This has no serious notability claim besides the fact that it existed, and even though it aired a full decade ago the only reference that has ever been added at all is its own self-published press release about itself rather than any evidence of media coverage. As always, what we're looking for on Wikipedia is verification of notability, not just verification of existence -- but nothing here constitutes evidence of notability at all. Bearcat ( talk) 17:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:58, 6 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) 09:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

2017 Kandel stabbing attack

AfDs for this article:
2017 Kandel stabbing attack (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another article in the German Refugee Crime walled garden. This one survived AfD on the basis that it would prove to be a watershed moment that would change German immigration policy. But the failure of it to meet WP:SUSTAINED subsequently suggests this was false. While it's a more marginal case than the other nominees in this group, it still at best marginally in line with WP:EVENTCRIT and its failure in WP:SUSTAINED make me think it should be deleted. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:15, 6 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. Despite being potentially ironic in doing so, there is strong consensus that notability is established (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

WalkAway campaign

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

This is just a hashtag that went viral. Of the RS that report on it, a WaPo "analysis" piece suggests it's not meaningful [28], a CNN op-ed says that the popularity of the hashtag was inflated by Russian trolls [29], and Snopes found that photos associated with the movement were stock photos [30]. The rest of the sources look unreliable, with the exception of Fox (which is considered a RS on the RS noticeboard) but which has a clear anti-Dem bias [31]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

  • I forgot to mention this but two of the three sources are not straight-news reporting but rather op-eds and analysis pieces, and both of those pieces dispute that the hashtag is notable. The third source (Snopes) on a similar line suggests that the popularity of the movement is artificially inflated. So, of the three RS, they are all effectively about how this movement is not notable. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Snooganssnoogans, notable means "worthy of notice", and in Wikipedia terms that's determined by coverage in reliable sources. So reliable sources arguing that something is not notable are, ironically, proving that it is notable. And the NY Post and the Fox articles are not opinion pieces. Brad v 15:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Changing "comment" to "keep". No valid deletion reason given. Brad v 16:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is the first I've heard of this, and I appreciate that Wikipedia has an apparently neutral article on the topic. Don't confuse "notable" with "real". If astroturfing is sufficiently widespread to get noticed by mainstream media, that seems to make it notable to me. This wouldn't be notable if the media felt that there was no need to debunk it. See also Pizzagate. – wbm1058 ( talk) 15:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a real campaign. It may not be a very successful campaign, but to conflate the success of the campaign with the notability of the campaign is just POV-pushing. It's not even good POV-pushing; if you delete any mention of a thing from the reliable media, people aren't going to think "oh well, I guess this is a thing I'm not supposed to know about", they're going to go to the unreliable media. Chi Sigma ( talk) 16:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:17, 6 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) Sam Sailor 11:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

2018 Amsterdam stabbing attack

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

Another page from the German Refugee Crimes walled garden. This one branches out a bit and is a Dutch refugee crime page instead. Same issues with WP:SUSTAINED and WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS as the other articles in this grouping. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It isn't a "refugee crime" as you are downplaying it, it was the first terrorist attack in the Netherlands since 2001 (according to Dutch intelligence agency's) and therefore a significant event. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to get articles like this deleted by lying that it is about an ordinary crime. Terrorist attacks are no ordinary crimes. It did get a lot of media attention in the Netherlands but of course it doens't get media coverage all the time since the criminal trial takes a long time. It gets media coverage every time there are new details. Histogenea22 ( talk) 17:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    I would suggest you should review WP:BATTLEGROUND and redact the bits of your statement just now that violate WP:NPA. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Now, notwithstanding that rough start, I'd posit that there's nothing about WP:EVENTCRIT that makes a crime purportedly motivated by terrorism any more or less notable than any other crime. In this case it was an attack on two people. Regardless of the motive of the attacker, two guys getting stabbed may be shocking, but absent any sort of significant sustained coverage of the event that demonstrates lasting encyclopedic significance, it's just another shocking crime. In this case, it's literally, at worst, an attempted murder as neither victim was killed. Nor was the suspected attacker. This is not notable per WP:NOTNEWS and invoking the spectre of terrorism does not make it moreso. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The attacker left a will and did not expect to survive the stabbing spree. Unfortunately there are frequent attempts by extremists and and their apologists to downplay the significance of failed attacks, while the former celebrate large-scale attacks with a multitude of victims. Since the assailant survived, a trial is certain to take place. AadaamS ( talk) 06:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I would caution you that WP:BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia including talk pages and AfD discussions. Referring to a suspect of a crime as "the assailant" prior to the trial could be considered a WP:BLP violation. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Wide international coverage in August/September 2018 close to the event. Continuing coverage in October -e.g. - [32] [33]. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now per WP:RAPID: terrorist attacks are not "routine incidents" in Europe and it's unlikely they ever will be considered so. Terrorist attacks and subsequent trials generate long-term media attention once they are concluded. A trial is certain to take place as the attacker survived being shot by police, despite the expectation of the assailant who wrote a will prior to going on the murdering spree. Per WP:COMPETENCE, terrorist incidents in EU countries are summarized and reported in annual reports by Europol. AadaamS ( talk) 06:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • What does WP:COMPETENCE have to do with whether an assault that may have been motivated by religion constitutes a "terrorist incident"? Or do I need to break out statistics on frequency of knife attacks in Europe to demonstrate that sometimes people get stabbed and it's generally not notable? Simonm223 ( talk) 15:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    For whatever reason, it would seem that alleged attacks, that were allegedly ideologically motivated, against strangers (and all the more so - foreign tourists) garner much more coverage in RSes than other attacks. It also seems, for whatever reason, that police attempt to foil such alleged attacks as they allegedly did here - allegedly shooting the alleged assailant within 9 seconds of the start of the alleged stabbing (see BBC which for some reason does not deem alleged to be a necessary qualifier in this case). Our personal value judgement on the editorial choices made by RSes who have chooen to cover this incident (while not covering various other incidents) is irrelevant for notability - what is relevant is coverage. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Except that WP:NOTNEWS limits the extent to which coverage matters, as does WP:EVENTCRIT which expressly excludes shocking crimes unless they're shown to have broader impacts. The only broad impact here is getting racists excited. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Not a routine event. Coverage (international coverage, continuing coverage) clearly pegs WP:EVENTCRIT(2) - Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    I think we have a fundamental disagreement over what constitutes widespread impact. I mean, has the Netherlands banned knives? Has there been any other policy change? Any shift in international relations? No? Ok, no widespread impact. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Assessing impact is a matter of OR and POV (though in this case this did result in a US travel advisory). EVENTCRIT(2) does not require such an assessment, and generally the existence of continued coverage implies a lasting effect. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • All terrorist attacks in Europe that have either succeeded or been foiled at major transportation hubs have standalone articles due to WP:SIGCOV because they are well-known places with uncounted international travellers passing through. They generate a lot of analysis and publications in WP:RS.
  • If the victims release a letter via the US Embassy thanking police and hospital staff for saving their lives, it is logical that they were in a life-threatening situation. Many people have been killed in terrorist knife-attacks in Europe over the last few years. It does indeed happen that lethal violence is trivialized by extremists and their apologists simply because more victims survice injuries that would have been life-threatening two decades ago. This is of course thanks to the improving skills of medical expertise, not due to any imagined harmlessness of hypothetical attackers. AadaamS ( talk) 19:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    @ Icewhiz: That's funny. Because that's not at all what the actual words of the actual policy say. @ AadaamS: "All terrorist attacks have..." is WP:OSE covered. Also I still challenge that you can call a stabbing for which the trial has not concluded in which nobody was killed a terrorist attack on the basis of a prosecutor's report of a suspect's possible motive. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Strong keep, wide international and continuing coverage.-- Greywin ( talk) 21:35, 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 keep. Overall consensus is for article retention. North America 1000 10:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

2018 Hamburg stabbing attack

AfDs for this article:
2018 Hamburg stabbing attack (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another article in the German Refugee Crime walled garden. It doesn't meet WP:SUSTAINED guidelines for WP:NOTNEWS and per WP:EVENTCRIT does not appear to have had any lasting effect. While any example of misogynistic domestic violence is terrible it is also sadly common, and selecting this one for encyclopedic treatment because the victim was a white woman while the suspected assailant was not is not something Wikipedia should be doing. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. This is much easier to assess than the partner article currently nominated for deletion. Stabbings are, sadly, common throughout Europe and America and rarely merit a mention in the encyclopedia. The efforts to liken this crime to others committed in Germany recently by immigrants simply serve to illustrate how commonplace the particular incident is. The fact that there is no corresponding article in German wikipedia underlines this. Deb ( talk) 15:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Clear consensus to keep on 21 April 2018 due to very wide international coverage around the time of the event (which was gruesome - the beheading or near beheading of a baby and killing the mother as well in a crowded subway station). There has been continued international coverage due to claims of German censorship, [35] [36] which seem to be false. [37] There is also continuing German national level coverage - [38] [39] [40] - thus we meet WP:NCRIME due to sustained national(+) level coverage. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    I will also note that there is no evidence presented for the assertion that per nom this was "selecting this one for encyclopedic treatment because the victim was a white woman while the suspected assailant was not is not something Wikipedia should be doing" - which seems to be an assertion regarding the motivations of the editors involved in the article to date. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    It's fairly clear that the article creator has a political agenda - he has been quite open about it in the past. But, leaving that aside, no one seems able to explain why editors on German wikipedia have not felt strongly enough to create an article in their own language on this supposedly important topic. Deb ( talk) 15:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Experienced editors generally avoid creating articles on subjects that may be deleted. In my own cross-wiki editing experience I've run across situations in which articles clearly passed a SNG on one wiki and did not in another. Regardless - cross-wiki arguments are usually fairly weak (this goes both ways - also for "keep, this exists in wiki X") - the exceptions being a superbly sourced article on another wiki (the sources establishing notability - not the article) or a situation in which there are many-many cross wiki links (with caveats here as well - e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliad Bar was present on some 5 wikis - created by the same user - possibly to strengthen notability)). Icewhiz ( talk) 16:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ E.M.Gregory: What's ad hominem? You linked a web page from a group noted for being deeply anti-islamic and very lose with the truth as a source to establish the notability of an article that was created as a WP:COATRACK for the article creator's political views on immigration, with an example of that belief cited above by Deb. Had you not shared that deeply offensive link I would not have commented on it. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I deleted irrelevant details about the demographics of the suspect that only matter if you subscribe to the position that the national origin of the criminal is in any way relevant or notable to any non-hate-crime. Which I don't. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • User:E.M.Gregory, kindly don't accuse me of things I didn't do. I deleted one short paragraph purporting to deal with "similar" crimes which actually were only considered similar by one source - this is POV editing. When the paragraph was repeatedly replaced, I reworded it to put it into context. At no point did I delete a large swathe of text, nor did I delete any sources. Deb ( talk) 16:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • An entire section - 13:54, 6 November 2018 - which seems well sourced - was deleted on the spurious claim that the suspect (or technically more accurate - the accused) was called a perpetrator. It is not clear that sources do not treat the accused, who confessed, [43] as a perpatrator - bild seem to be calling him a "Messer-Killer" (knife killer) in their own voice - but regardless - the alleged BLPCRIME concern could've been dealt with a simple replacement of the word - rather than section blanking. We generally do not delete large swathes of an article concurrent to AfD unless there are urgent policy reasons to do so (i.e. clear and glaring BLP vios). Icewhiz ( talk) 16:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
It does seem to me that, once you start speculating on a perpetrator's motives in an article, using the prosecution's words to do so, you are treading on dangerous ground, BLP-wise. In the UK - I don't know about Germany - an accused could claim that they were unable to get a fair trial if there was widespread repeating of such accusations in the media. Deb ( talk) 16:28, 7 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. Despite the AfD being open for some time, no one has provided any sources to say why this is a notable match. Simply that it is a country's first does not make it inherently notable if there has been no reporting beyond routine match reports. Not sure there is anything worth merging to the Balkan cup article at the moment. Fenix down ( talk) 08:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply

1946 Albania v Yugoslavia football match

1946 Albania v Yugoslavia football match (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability at all. Fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to 1946 Balkan Cup, if another source can be found to support the information (just a match database at the moment, the Serbian link is broken.) It doesn't state it was the opening match of the 1946 Balkan Cup in the article. The stadium's inauguration is also interesting, and some mentions of the event can be listed there. I thought this might be best covered in period sources but couldn't find any mentions of it online and in Serbo-Croatian, which admittedly is a small sample size, but Yugoslavia and Albania had decent relations in 1946 and there's undoubtedly coverage of it somewhere - the Albanian historical football site has photos from two of the other matches in the tournament. SportingFlyer talk 11:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable match, first matches of England, Scotland etc. also exist. Deleting this would be a discriminate act of only furthering the systemic bias (not the first instance against Albanian or Yugoslav football topic). Linhart ( talk) 17:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • If the article is deleted, than I don't have to go there as you cannot add sources if the article is nonexistent. My point was that instead of putting AfDs just ping me or others at Wikiproject Yugoslavia or Wikiproject Football and we will gladly provide sources. Linhart ( talk) 20:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:48, 6 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Paathshala play school

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

I was asked to look at this page by a cousin of mine. I am well and truly astonished how such a piece can even exist on Wikipedia. What appalls me is that this piece of promo spam fails to even meet the most lax notability guidelines ( this) yet it has been languishing in article space for more than two weeks !  —  f r  + 14:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Please tell me how this article meets WP:GNG; not every school is notable enough for an article Spiderone 10:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Summit Bisht, what matters here on Wikipedia is the availability of extensive reliable third party coverage of the school. If such sources cannot be found then the article should be deleted as per policy  —  f r  + 16:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Comment - This article is for a really good cause...it is about a school which is giving education to the children also there are relevant evidence related to this school you can talk about this on paathshala play school talk page thanks-- Summit Bisht ( talk) 06:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Please note that this user has voted keep on two occasions Spiderone 10:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Spiderone and Summit Bisht: - I've struck the 2nd keep and replaced with a "comment" - obviously if the editor wants to change it to anything other than another !vote they can, I just felt it a reasonable standing replacement. Nosebagbear ( talk) 18:59, 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 Wrong forum. While AfDs can occasionally result in redirects or mergers, this forum is only for proposing deletions. Proposing mergers or redirects happens on the article talk page. Sandstein 21:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Tom de Beer

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

Redirect to Afrikaner Broederbond and merge content. Does not satisfy gng. It is not clear how notability can be justified. 1l2l3k ( talk) 13:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Close the nominator does not need AfD for the proposed editorial action. Discuss on talk or just be bold. Legacypac ( talk) 13:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect. This is one of a set of articles created by the same editor, so that each of the past Afrikaner Broederbond leaders have an article about them. However not all leaders are equal - some justify an article about them, some do not. In this case, while the article is well researched most sources are used to verify facts about de Beer, and the only significant coverage towards notability is the mg.co.za article, which is primarily about the organisation. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 14:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Notability

I first of all, do not know Tom de Beer. I do not belong to the Afrikaner Bond or its predecessor, the Afrikaner Broederbond. I didn’t write the articles on either of the two”bonds”. The Afrikaner Broederbond was written about in the printed media and newspaper quite frequently. The influence it had over the South African Government of the day was well documented and all Presidents and Prime Ministers were members. The organization, although being secretive is definitely notable, maybe even a bit controversial. Being the last leader of the organisation makes it as notable as it leaders were through the years. The leaders were all, politicians, Afrikaners leaders, chancellors and rectors of universities. De beer was chairman of Gencor, one of the biggest mining companies in the world. He was also chairman when the Afrikaner Broederbond changed to the Afrikanerbond and remained chairman of the Afrikanerbond until 2000. This change was at the same time that South Africa became a true democratic country, with the abolishment of Apartheid. De Beer led the organisation to become, not secretive, non-sexist and non-racial. In the context of South Africa, pre and post 1994, the Afrikanerbond and Afrikaner Broederbond played together with its leaders a notable roll in South Africa diverse history and are well documented. Barry Ne ( talk) 14:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

A redirect is basically a deletion. This is not a misuse of the AfD, actually I think this is the best place to have this discussion for notability. -- 1l2l3k ( talk) 15:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
A redirect is nothing like a deletion. They have nothing whatsoever in common. Deletions destroy the edit and version history. Redirects do not. Any editor can redirect an article in the course of ordinary editing or can undo a redirect. Redirecting an article is normal part of BRD. Deletions can only be done by admins and cannot generally be undone. Really, if you want to redirect the article just go do it. If there's pushback discuss it on the talk page. That's how we do redirects. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 17:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
At this point I would like this discussion to have an admin decision. Otherwise one day someone will wake up, remove the redirect and reinstate the article. Why not have a decision since we're at it? -- 1l2l3k ( talk) 14:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Admins can't enforce the existence of redirects. It's just not a power they have. Suppose this gets closed by an admin as "redirect" and then some editor goes and redirects the article. Another editor could undo the redirect right after and start a conversation. Nothing is gained from this AfD no matter how it closes, which is why it's a waste of everyone's time. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 14:19, 9 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. Bordering on keep. Sandstein 21:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

2018 Freiburg gang rape

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

Page covers an event that falls under WP:NOTNEWS. At article talk, the only editor willing to defend the existence of the article could not justify how it met criteria for WP:EVENTCRIT. Article is part of a walled garden on crimes in Germany with refugee suspects and there have been repeated attempts to link it in copy to unrelated crimes on the basis that suspects investigated by the police include refugees when there is no other correlation between the crimes. Little evidence of sustained coverage. No media coverage outside of routine crime reportage in the German press. Simonm223 ( talk) 13:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 13:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 13:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per #4 of WP:EVENTCRIT. While the claim is "shocking", rape is sadly common, and there is not much reason to believe that this one will hold significance in the longer term. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This is terribly difficult. The topic does have basic notability. What it does not have is balance, either in its content or in the sources quoted, and particularly in terms of the significance claimed for it. The fact that certain sections of the German media may be guilty of equally unbalanced reporting doesn't make it okay for us to follow their lead. It is one element in a systematic campaign by one or two editors to ensure that crimes committed in Germany by immigrants get maximum publicity in English-language sources whilst similar crimes committed by native Germans get none. Frankly, if the crime figures for Germany really reflected what the article creator would like to claim, then it would not be significant in context, as is evinced by the fact that there was no article on the subject in German Wikipedia until 2 November, when an anonymous user created one. (It could be coincidental that the creator of the article we are currently discussing, a native German speaker, was blocked from this Wikipedia earlier on that day.) Failing deletion, I would propose a redirect to the existing article, Immigration and crime in Germany, which already lists many such crimes individually. Deb ( talk) 14:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • On the contrary, it is extremely difficult to achieve balance in an article like this; I should know, I have actually tried, and have been reverted at every turn. Deb ( talk) 16:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
@ AadaamS: We've heard this story before, "this time there will be government action." Only per WP:CRYSTAL that's not a reason for notability. And I'll point out that I asked you several times at article talk to explain how this meets WP:EVENTCRIT and you refused to do so. Simonm223 ( talk) 23:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
In fact when I asked you about WP:EVENTCRIT here, you asked me to take this to AfD rather than providing a justification at article talk. Simonm223 ( talk) 23:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Simonm223: it was you who first mentioned an AfD and it is the better way to resolve a notability dispute as it involves more editors. So thanks for the nomination I will of course happily abide by the outcome of the AfD. AadaamS ( talk) 06:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
@ AadaamS: I'm simply pointing out that I gave you ample opportunity to explain the notability before posting an AfD and you asked me to post the AfD rather than do so. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:39, 7 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 21:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Singapore Linux User Group

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

Failing WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Also WP:NOTDIR. It seems there is at least one other "Linux User Group" in Singapore. The one accessible from the external links in article Linux user group is a different one. So possible fork/promo. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Addendum: The creator of the article and the contact for the user group appear to be the same person, so highly likely WP:COI and promo. See this diff and the FB page accessible via the group's website linked in the article.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui  雲 水 11:21, 6 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. Consensus is clear that this is a probable hoax and would be non-notable in any case. In addition to the other evidence of a hoax, note that this article is the creator's only contribution, which in the case of a suspected hoax is always a major red flag. Closing early per WP:SNOW and because the probable hoax is already propagating across the Internet. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Clancy Osei Konadu

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

No idea why this was accepted like this at AfC by User:Legacypac. First source doesn't mention subject, third and fourth source are about an obviously different Konadu, which leaves us with a report of a U-17 match, which, surprise, doesn't mention this person either.

Worse, Clancy Osei Konadu seems to missing from all reliable sources, and even from all non user-generated sources [47], which gives the strong impression that this is a hoax. At the very best, this is an utterly non notable player who completely fails WP:NSPORTS, with sources in the article which don't meet WP:V for the subject, and no other sources about him available. Fram ( talk) 09:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

If this fails WP:FOOTY delete the page but if it meets that standard (which it seems to) keep. FOOTY is a stupid notability threshhold that opperates as a bright line. Normal notability standards like NSPORTS don't apply. The best way to sort out FOOTY, which covers a confusing sport with tons of levels of play, is to expose the page to subject matter experts who tag and assess these pages quite quickly. See my comments on the talkpage. Also, I urge you to stop stalking my edits because that is harassment and sanctionable. Legacypac ( talk) 09:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Legacypac, perhaps slow down and read the actual complete deletion nomination instead of this instant reply which misses the point? None of the sources at the time you accepted this article mention the subject, and no reliable sources about the subject seem to exist. Which makes this probably a WP:HOAX. Your reply completely fails to address this major problem. And I would be a very poor admin if I came across this article and not acted upon it. Fram ( talk) 10:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I read the nom. Keep or delete is based on the existence of sources and notability guidelines. If you can prove the page is a hoax, than prove it. If it was an obvious hoax it would have been speedied as such. Legacypac ( talk) 10:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:19, 6 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 21:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

NAGA Group AG

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

Puffed-up advertisement for cryptocurrency exchange. Sourcing has been improved - but there's still very little RS coverage (lots of bitcoin blogs), and most refs are non-RSes or tangential. Declined PROD; the decliner attempted to fix the article, but if these are the best references available then it clearly fails WP:CORP. David Gerard ( talk) 08:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 08:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 08:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 08:05, 6 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. While there are hoax fears, there seems a reasonable consensus that until that is conclusively demonstrated Wiki should opt for the balance of sources which indicates real existence. In the event of *significant* new evidence demonstrating a hoax then this can always be re-considered. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Woggabaliri

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

Seems to just be one massive (and fairly racist) hoax. TheAwesomeHwyh ( talk) 06:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

As well as making a cheeky joke about soccer in Australia, one that soccer fans should be embarrassed about. HiLo48 ( talk) 06:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep This game was described in the book The Aboriginal Soccer Tribe, by Professor John Maynard [48]. I don't know why that reference is not in the article. As well as the article from the Adelaide Advertiser, which is referenced, there is this one in the Sydney Morning Herald [49]. The rules appear on another Australian government website, as well as the one referenced, here [50]. There are some commentators in Australia, mainly racist shock jocks, who claim it is made up. But the author of the book is Aboriginal himself, and his research, and the 19th century engraving illustrating this article, are genuine. TheAwesomeHwyh, would it be possible for you to withdraw the nomination for AfD? RebeccaGreen ( talk) 12:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Definite keep With anthropological academic peer reviewed references going back to at least 1904 it is hard see how this is fake. Those claiming it is fake will need to do some pretty amazing WP:OR to prove such? Aoziwe ( talk) 12:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have added some references, and also changed the order of sentences in the History section so that the first sentence is now " 'Woggabaliri' was documented prior to 1904 as the Ngunnawal word for "play"." I hope that will help people realise that it is not made up, and it is not a play on 'wogball', which seems to date from the 1970s, and certainly not until after WWII and the arrival of post-war migrants to Australia. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 13:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The references seem adequate. For example, a federal government body, Australian Sports Commission, includes the game in its publications - and has done for decades. Bureaucrats tend to be very careful about stepping on toes! And are very aware of cultural sensitivities around traditional cultural knowledge. So their vetting of the history is probably even stronger than Wikipedia's. yoyo ( talk) 14:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am torn as to the veracity of this article at this stage. There are big issues here that MUST be addressed if this is not going to be permanently seen as a hoax. The name instantly looks to older Australian readers like "wogball", the insulting name for soccer from the 1970s. This makes it look like an anti-soccer joke, and is what has led to this AfD proposal. I'm certainly no expert, but the word doesn't seem like other claimed Aboriginal words. The article needs to explicitly address this point, with words pointing out the apparently "unfortunate" coincidence. The image used in the article is [[File:Marn grook illustration 1857.jpg]]. "Marn grook" is a game recognised as having been played in Victoria's Western District, known to one of the founders of Australian Rules Football, Tom Wills, who lived there, and is therefore seen as a precursor to that game. (So, more of the seeming cheeky joke.) It is used in Origins of Australian rules football, and several other articles. It's presence in this article also makes it seem like a hoax. The pic doesn't belong. The overlap with Marn Grook needs to be mentioned. (NOTE: That article uses the same image!) While these problems exist, this article will continue to look like a hoax. HiLo48 ( talk) 18:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It may be useful to add a section on claims that this is a hoax (which have appeared in the media, too, and can be referenced outside Wikipedia), although I don't know if Wikipedia would see that as appropriate within an encyclopaedia entry (EDIT - there are articles with a section called Hoax Claims, so I will have a go at writing one for this page, though I will need to access sources in order to do that). As for the word not seeming "like other claimed Aboriginal words" - it has a shape very typical of Aboriginal languages (CVCVCVCVCV), and if you look at the 1904 source of the word, you will see that almost all of the verbs end in -i (probably a tense ending), and several others end in -iri. (I am a linguist working with Aboriginal languages in the Northern Territory, and it certainly would not be an unusual word form in many of the languages still spoken.) As to the picture - it was apparently drawn at Merbein, which is considerably further north than the Western District. I note that the Marn grook article says "The indigenous ball game Woggabaliri, which is the subject of William Blandowski's Drawings of 1857". I have not seen the picture in the original book or archive sources myself, so I don't know how much information was recorded about the name of the people depicted, their language, or their name for the game. As the only image of Aboriginal people playing a ball game from that period, it is used to provide evidence that Aboriginal people did play such ball games, not necessarily as an illustration of one or the other. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 01:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the clarification re the typicality of this word as an Aboriginal one. It's good to hear from an expert. I support the idea of a Hoax Claims section, addressing and (hopefully) refuting that possibility. That's what's missing right now. Without it, the claims will continue. HiLo48 ( talk) 01:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. I remain sceptical. There's no doubting the 1904 source, but it wouldn't take a genius to notice the similarities between a word for "play" and the racist euphemism "wogball". It seems the two were only linked together relatively recently. However, the article should reflect the published sources. Doctorhawkes ( talk) 02:54, 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 21:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Harrison J. Fuller

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

16 year old does not pass WP:CREATIVE and was move out of AfC out of process. Legacypac ( talk) 04:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:39, 6 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 21:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Śramaṇa religion

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

WP:CONTENTFORK of Śramaṇa, which already covers the topic of Sramana philosophies; "Śramaṇa religion" is WP:SYNTHESIS, since there was not a single "Śramaṇa religion," but a Sramana movement, with a multitude of religious and philosophical ideas. See also Talk:Śramaṇa religion#Fork of Sramana. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Support delete and salting. The article creator cites some sources that allegedly supports the notability and term "Śramaṇa religion". They do not. The author alleges with the edit commentary "it is synonymous with digambara branch of jainism, similar to the how brahmanism is synonymous with "sanatana dharma" branch of hinduism religion", and then provides the note, see /info/en/?search=Tamil_Jain. Clearly, someone who cites wiki as RS and then edit wars over it, is not serious, likely to reflect CIR and TE concerns. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 03:16, 8 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 21:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Chris Madin

Chris Madin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete: I was quite confused on doing CSD looking to his imdb but i also realize that this article doesn't meet notability as per WP:MUSICBIO. Not have any significance coverage too. So, I left it all on your hands. point out your opinion. TheRedBox ( talk) 04:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment - See Wikipedia's definition of " reliable sources". --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 16:10, 6 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, with pleasure. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Atheta esuriens

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

I can't find any indication this is a valid or generally accepted species name. I checked Google, GBooks, and GScholar to start, and found only the source cited in the article ( [51]). I then checked the four sources used as references for the List of Atheta species (ITIL, Catalogue of Life, GBIF and BugGuide), but none of them mentioned this name. Neither does NCBI Taxonomy Browser. I know we consider species to be inherently notable, but if this isn't an accepted species, can we really apply that standard?

I don't think it's suitable for a redirect since it isn't mentioned on the parent page/isn't confirmed valid yet.

I'm more than happy to withdraw if people with experience in this kind of thing think the single source is sufficient for validity (I'm not an expert by any means, just a backlog gnome armed with PetScan). ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Howdy. Bit of a tricky one, but I'd be tempted to leave it be. The species is subsequently listed in this text which I'd regard as reputable. Given the preponderance of beetle articles which are probably in a similar situation, especially those with recently established bionomials I think this might be a worrying precedent to start deleting if they aren't named elsewhere on the ITIL, GBIF etc. which probably are just taking a while to catch up with the quagmire of Coleoptera taxonomy. Zakhx150 ( talk) 21:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Zakhx15. The listing in the secondary source is sufficient confirmation. Trying to determine the validity of newly established species is not really our role -- tho it can be tempteing because we have quite a number of expert editors s for many areas. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
My concern was mainly that I couldn't find any secondary sources aside from the one published paper - usually I have no trouble finding at least mentions of species names, no matter how obscure. Not sure why that book didn't come up for me, but I'm happy to withdraw given the verification. Thanks, Zakhx150 and DGG. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 7 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 21:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

ESports Award

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

Fails WP:N. Majority of the currently used sources come from websites of unknown reliability. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 01:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - sources currently in article suffer from a number of issues (1st party sources, press releases, obscure sources of unlikely reliability ) that make it not meet the WP:GNG. Will reconsider if better sources are found (though there’s an awful lot of false positives out there with such a generic name.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 8 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 21:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Alexander DeVoe.

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

WP:PORNBIO doesn't include producers or directors, only actors. As such this article doesn't meet notability criteria. GNG not satisfied either. 1l2l3k ( talk) 00:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply


John Pack Lambert Can you tell me y it is non notable Iamheentity ( talk) 14:24, 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. Nobody wants to keep this and the proposed redirect target section does not exist. A redirect can still be created once it does. Sandstein 21:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Eunice Bowman

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

No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG talk 17:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 17:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 17:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Redirect to appropriate list. Most of this article is padded with unrelated trivia about her family such as what ages her parents died and life and death dates of all her children. There's two sentences that tell us "she became the oldest in the country after the death of the previous". All four sources are WP:ROUTINE obituaries Once the strained trivia is removed, even if notable, WP:NOPAGE should apply as this article cannot be expanded beyond born, worked, got married, had kids, got old and then died. CommanderLinx ( talk) 10:41, 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. Nobody wants to keep this and the proposed redirect target section does not exist. A redirect can still be created once it does. Sandstein 21:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Florrie Baldwin

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

No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG talk 17:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 17:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 17:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:54, 30 October 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 longevity milestones for other individuals or arbitrary categories, and trivia fluff about her work, diet and the standard longevity advice. 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 two different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 ( talk) 23:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of British supercentenarians#Florrie Baldwin (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. The nominator notes, "We have tables for this." I recommend that instead of deleting the article's history, we redirect the article to the person's place in the table by adding an anchor to the person's entry. It is useful to preserve the history so that any interested editors can merge content to List of British supercentenarians#Biographies if they think the person deserves more than a mention in the table.

    Cunard ( talk) 03:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:14, 6 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. Nobody wants to keep this and the proposed redirect target section does not exist. A redirect can still be created once it does. Sandstein 21:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Emmeline Brice

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

No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG talk 17:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nothing of note to preserve on this one; would oppose redirect. — JFG talk 11:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:14, 6 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 MTV Classic (U.S. TV network). ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

We Are the Eighties

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

Second nomination. Article unsourced for thirteen years. Previous delete discussion concluded with redirect which was not done for some reason. Mccapra ( talk) 00:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:31, 6 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) 21:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

First Church of Christ, Scientist (Raleigh, North Carolina)

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

No sign of notability. Just a local church. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immanuel Lutheran Church (Hodgkins, Illinois). —DIYeditor ( talk) 06:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Century old churches with handsome buildings can almost always be sourced to establish notability. Advise Nom to include church's webpage [52] in WP:BEFORE searches, because it usually gives a hint about where to look - in this case for article's on the architecture of the Church's Reading Room. Also, with a denomination that was a big deal a century ago, (Christian Science in this case, but also the Presbyterian, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Unitarian and Catholic denominaitons,) but that are now shrinking, it is a fact that a proper search for notability cannot be done without access to a news archive. Rapidly bringing several churches to AfD with cursory nominations is NOT a responsible way to edit an encyclopedia. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
    • I think if establishing notability takes more than access to common search tools the onus is on the creator of the article to introduce sources. To me, what is not responsible is to create a string of article stubs on churches without including any significant reliable secondary coverage. —DIYeditor ( talk) 19:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
      • I wrote this article in 2010 and had not edited it since. I was newer to Wikipedia at that time and I think you should assume good faith over irresponsibility. I had completely forgotten about these articles until you tagged them today. I mostly focus on biographies now anyway. I will gladly improve them, but do not assume I decided to "create a string of article stubs". - Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 20:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
        • @ DIYeditor: Yes, entirely agreed. You must understand that when we joined Wikipedia years ago sourcing was not considered so important as it is now. Many of us created strings of unsourced stubs. It's what editors did then. Describing it as "not responsible" is failing to WP:AGF and assuming that Wikipedia has always been like it is now. It was a much younger project back then and procedures and guidelines were not so well-developed. We just all wanted to create new material as quickly as possible. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk ( talk) 21:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as the building itself is historic (built in 1931). -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 00:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not enough sources to show this passes WP:GEOFEAT and just because it was built in 1931 (not a century old) and that some may find it handsome (I don't) does not make it automatically of historical or cutural interest, as per the notability criteria those buildings that may be "require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." and none have been added to attest to the historical character of this building. Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as two relists have failed to produce sources to support this church's notability. This is one of many, many churches in the US that are "historic" in the sense of "built before now" rather than "notable enough for a Wikipedia article." Bakazaka ( talk) 21:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - with no significant coverage, fails to meet WP:GNG. Three primary sources, and one source that's not really about the building, but uses it to start a discussion about the national church organization itself. A Google search brings up nothing more except routine announcements of events. The building does not seem to be architecturally significant. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Colby Sanford

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

Fails WP:ARTIST, only local coverage and non notable awards. JC7V -talk 22:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:12, 6 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 21:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Kese Alberton

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

Does not pass WP:NPROF. Natureium ( talk) 22:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:12, 6 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_November_6&oldid=1142615315"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE