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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 14:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

L. S. Sheshagiri Rao (  | 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 notable. One reliable source does not fulfill notability and thus WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 23:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The article containing one source does not make the subject non-notable. When the article cited is from one of India's most prominent newspapers and calls him "an important figure in the field of Kannada literature...In a career spanning five decades, his books have educated generations about not only some of the best works in Kannada but also in English literature", the nomination is clearly deeply flawed. A full professor, the subject is widely cited (e.g. [1]), is called a "noted writer" by the Times of India ( [2]) and has an award named in his honour ( [3]). -- Michig ( talk) 07:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Vadim Zeland (  | 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 do not see notability being established here. Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant reliable coverage. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 23:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete, I nominated this via proposed deletion (I missed it had been PRODded a few years ago). There is no significant assertion of notability (self-publishing books on Amazon is not an assertion of notability), it is unreferenced and I have looked and cannot find reliable references, and it is promotional in tone. Fish+ Karate 09:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete. There is some coverage, eg [4], [5], but they are passing mentions and/or sources of dubious reliability; I'm not finding any slam-dunk evidence of notability. Vanamonde ( talk) 20:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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).— Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 08:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Alex Christofi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

apparently not yet notable: the only reviews cited are inclusion of the books in group reviews. Even the reviews call him a beginner. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete After reading back through the sources and seeing if I could find any more, I'm going to agree with you on the deletion. It's very possible he'll be notable in the future, but I think I probably made the wrong move trying to argue for his notability at the present time. If anyone else can prove his notability, however, that'd be good. PotentPotables ( talk ) 00:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep Looking at what others have said, I'm changing my stance to keep. (I'm not 100% certain on what all the notability things actually mean, but I thought I should probably offer my opinion on this article after creating it.) Seems notable enough to me, with my understanding PotentPotables ( talk ) 23:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I find this baffling. We don't judge notability solely by what is cited in an article. Both his books have received plenty of coverage in reliable sources: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and the several other group reviews are further coverage that adds to his notability. -- Michig ( talk) 07:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep – Meets WP:NAUTHOR point #3, per the subject's work having received "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", as evidenced by the sources denoted by Michig as well as those available in searches. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep, passes nauthor with the refs above. Szzuk ( talk) 18:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per WP:NAUTHOR. A simple search would reveal that his books have been reviewed in publication such as Times [12], Guardian [13] and others. Hzh ( talk) 18:18, 10 October 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 delete. Vanamonde ( talk) 20:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Andreas Ploner (  | 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 amateur player. No coverage in reliable sources, has won a few amateur events, appeared in some professional tournaments but did not get far. Does not meet WP:GNG. Previously nominated for CSD A7 by Velella, deletion tag appears to have been removed by the article's creator, unclear if an admin ever actually took a look at the page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - as noted above, I believed that this was a speedy delete candidate. I see nothing notable about this minor amateur player - I personally would almost qualify for notability if this one was kept.   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   08:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - in general, snooker players are not considered notable until they have turned professional. Nothing notable in his career as yet, appearing at ranking tournaments does not count for WP:GNG. Andygray110 ( talk) 20:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Possibly WP:TOOSOON. If he qualified for the main tour, he'd be fine. Lee Vilenski ^{( talk • contribs)} 11:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - non-notable player.— Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 08:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to List of Red Dwarf episodes#Unproduced scripts. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Dad (Red Dwarf) (  | 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 an unfinished, unproduced episode of a TV series. Unsourced, so no indication of accuracy or any discussion by reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Jellyman ( talk) 20:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt ( talk) 03:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Merge into List of Red Dwarf episodes#Unproduced scripts. There's enough here that some of it can be salvaged and merged into the parent article. Lowercaserho ( talk) 09:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Note there are several articles in Wikipedia on unproduced scripts of Red Dwarf episodes. Could these all be merged with the article on List of Red Dwarf episodes? Vorbee ( talk) 19:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge all the non-produced episodes can be merged; this one is the best-referenced. No coverage of these other than in Red Dwarf fan media. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge into List of Red Dwarf episodes#Unproduced scripts per Lowercaseho.— Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 09:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep or Merge into new article like Red Dwarf unproduced episodes (or "List of…" or "…scripts") which would combine the others. I think there is more to keep than what fits nicely into List of Red Dwarf episodes. What is there in the current list could be reduced to a small paragraph with a link to a new article. StrayBolt ( talk) 22:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde ( talk) 20:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Tom Pitts (  | 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 which was draftified almost a year ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Pitts, and then got moved back into mainspace again in March of this year without any discernible improvement in the sourcing over what wasn't good enough last time. Ten of the 12 footnotes here are blogs, podcasts or primary sources that are not valid support for notability at all -- and of the two that are acceptable reliable sources, one (LA Weekly) just contains a single glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about somebody else, while the other (SF Weekly) is a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself rather than being written about in the third person by other people. All of which means that exactly zero of the sources here bolster his notability at all. Bearcat ( talk) 20:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for making me aware of this action. First, I'd like to note that since the original submission was "draftified," there has been considerable change. The original submission did rely on blog material, but that was removed in favor of independent higher-level sourcing. In particular, references 4, 6, and 7-10 are not blogs. They are independent reviews from reputable websites." Rory1262 ( talk) 11:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

The Big Thrill, Litreactor, Fjords, New York Journal of Books and Mysterious Book Report are not reliable sources for establishing the notability of a writer. Bearcat ( talk) 18:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

In what respects are they wanting, please? I welcome other voices as well, since these sources were previously deemed acceptable. Rory1262 ( talk) 21:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

In respect of being blogs published on WordPress, rather than established publications with reputations for being reliable. In respect of LitReactor describing itself as an "interactive online community", thus failing our rule against user-generated sourcing; in respect of The Big Thrill describing itself as "a way for successful, bestselling authors to help debut and midlist authors advance their careers", i.e. an advertorial PR blog where writers can more or less "buy" their own coverage rather than getting it organically; in respect of New York Journal of Books feeling the need to point out in its own mission statement that "our catalog of reviews has far more in common with respected print reviews than with any other online-only review" — which is basically the Wikipedia referencing equivalent of a guy pointing out that he's "very good looking" in a personals ad or a politician pointing out that he's a "very stable genius": if you have to explicitly make the statement about how reliable or hot or smart or stable you are yourself, because people aren't organically seeing you as reliable or hot or smart or stable on their own, then you're inherently not what you say you are. Bearcat ( talk) 18:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I also have a question about process, please. This article was previously accepted by someone with authority who deemed the sources sufficient. Has that person been notified? If not, I'd like to suggest that they be involved as well. Do some editors have more authority than others? Can a decision to reverse acceptance be launched unilaterally? Thank you. Rory1262 ( talk) 11:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Other voices welcomed here too, in addition to response from the nominator. Rory1262 ( talk) 21:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Couldn't find any reliable sources in searches. Curiocurio ( talk) 14:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

If you’ll excuse me, may I again request a little more on the level that constitutes “reliable” and why sources that were previously deemed adequate are now apparently below the bar? Rory1262 ( talk) 17:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

You can have a look at WP:Identifying reliable sources. The basic concept is that the reliable source is independent (unrelated to the subject), and the writing has to meet some sort of editing standard, e.g. from the publisher of a book, or editors of a newspaper. This excludes interviews, where the subject is talking about themselves, blogs, social media, etc. Also, the coverage in the source has to be substantial, say a paragraph at least, not just a mention of the subject's name. None of the current sources in the article meet these criteria. Hope this helps. Curiocurio ( talk) 18:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete: does not meet WP:CREATIVE; sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Promotionalism only on a nn individual. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

What’s the timetable, please? Whatever the final decision is, may I please request that the entry be “draftified” again, rather than deleted, pending the appearance of firmer support? Rory1262 ( talk) 19:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete and draftify. I added a Kirkus review but was unable to find any other reliable sources. I also did a rewrite to address promotional tone (and removed an insignificant/less-than-independent award), but notability is the issue, and it has not been established. Draftify because there is a possibility that more coverage will break soon -- according to the article a new book is out next month. JSFarman ( talk) 22:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn as a more solid notability claim has been located and sourced. Bearcat ( talk)

Mark O'Keefe (politician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. As always, being a candidate for office is not a notability freebie in and of itself -- to be considered notable enough for an article, a candidate needs to either already have preexisting notability for other reasons, or have a strong claim to his candidacy being some form of special case over and above most other people's candidacies. But this cites just two references, which is hardly an unusual volume of coverage for a political candidate, and it makes no claim to preexisting notability at all. Note that this is the same person as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark O'Keefe, which closed as a delete, but it's not a recreation of deleted content for the purposes of CSD -- due to the screenwriter hijacking (and very recent unhijacking back to the original politician) that I pointed out in that discussion, this actually existed before that discussion took place, and we somehow missed the fact that there was a duplicate article about the politician at another title. So it's not speediable, but it's not well sourced enough to stick around either. Bearcat ( talk) 19:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Concur with and adopt Bearcat's exhaustive analysis and evaluation. He did yeoman work, which I could hardly improve. Quis separabit? 19:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Mark O'Keefe served in the Montana Legislature and is notable-I added another citation-Thank You- RFD ( talk) 19:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep The Montana Standard reference clearly states he served two terms as a state legislator. WP:POLITICIAN applies. -- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Elected member of the Montana legislature. Passes WP:NPOL. -- Enos733 ( talk) 21:46, 5 October 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 Saint-Michel, Montreal. Consensus is to not have a stand-alone page. However, since it is fine being mentioned in the neighbourhood article, there's nothing wrong with a redirect, which found support in this AfD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 01:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Saint-Michel Boulevard (Montreal) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly referenced article about a city street, with no genuinely strong claim of notability. As always, every street (even fairly major arterial roads) is not automatically presumed notable just because it exists, or even just because it has a notable building on it — per WP:ROADOUTCOMES, the key to making a city street notable enough for an article is to show properly sourced historical, political or social context for what makes the road special. But the only sources being shown here are a map, a historical directory of street names published by the city itself, and a glancing namecheck of the street's existence in a single news article about a shooting that happened on it two months ago, which is not enough — and even the French article doesn't actually contain any more content or any more sourcing than this (its only "reference" besides the city directory is a clarifying note rather than a source citation.) Simply put, neither the substance nor the sourcing shown here are enough to make a road notable. Bearcat ( talk) 18:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. Why recreate in a red link in {{Streets in Montreal}} Template:Streets in Montreal? This is a small part of the history of Montreal. Peter Horn User talk 01:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Every street and building and park that exists at all can always claim to be a "small part" of the history of the place where it exists — but that's not a reason why every street or building or park that exists at all would automatically qualify for an encyclopedia article. And red links in templates or articles can easily be either unlinked or removed entirely, so "but deleting this would recreate a redlink" isn't a valid reason in and of itself to keep an article that hasn't established its topic's basic notability in the first place either. Bearcat ( talk) 18:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete – The article is not much more than an WP:ITEXISTS exercise. Etymology of the name is trivial. The claim that this street is part of History of Montreal is not corroborated by that article, which only mentions the Saint-Michel neighbourhood in passing. — JFG ^talk 01:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. (comment) The same objection could be raised against all entries in Template:Streets in Montreal. But see les grandes rues de Montreal. Peter Horn User talk 02:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Sorry had to strike-off your double keep. Matthew_hk t c 04:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete, and remove other red link in the template, unless notability was shown. Matthew_hk t c 04:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Again, see les grandes rues de Montreal. A good source for expanding this article and perhaps others. That said, why not get rid of the template altogether, because the same objection(s) could be reached against every street liated in the template. Peter Horn User talk 14:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

A source published by the city itself is a primary source, not an independent one, so it does not constitute evidence in and of itself that a street passes our notability test for streets. Bearcat ( talk) 18:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

@ MTLskyline: This is nitpicking. By these criteria one could delete all streets from the the template. One solution would be to create two new aricles, one for north southe streets and another for east west streets, made sections on each. Peter Horn User talk 21:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I think there is a few thousand street in Hong Kong. I don't think creating a template to list all the street name, would had a logic to justify the creation of thousand of article for non-notable street. Some project out of wikipedia may useful to create an entry for each street, but not in an encyclopedia. Matthew_hk t c 05:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Kellergraham: Look, Saint Michel Boulevard (Montreal) is not simply any street, but a Thoroughfare. As such it is not less notable than Papineau Avenue Park Avenue (Montreal) and Saint Hubert Street etc. Leave this alone as a Stub. You all take care of Hong Kong streets and Hong Kong Roads. Let Montreal Wikipedians take care on Montreal. Peter Horn User talk 14:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Thoroughfares are not automatically more notable than "regular" streets are just because you use the word "thoroughfare" — no matter what kind of street it is, its notability still has to be demonstrated by historical, political or social context for what makes it special, not just by basic factoids and its physical description, and still has to be supported by reliable source content about it (which is not the same thing as "glancingly mentioning its name in coverage about something else") in sources independent of it (which is not the same thing as "the city government's own self-published website"). I live in Toronto, and lots of streets here which can also claim to be thoroughfares and not just side streets still don't have their own standalone articles either, because they're lacking the depth of context and sourcing needed to earn them. Same goes in New York City and Chicago and Los Angeles and London, too: there are many more city streets that don't have Wikipedia articles than there are city streets that do, and the distinction isn't "thoroughfares automatically get freebies while other streets don't" — it's "substantive context and solid sourcing for it". Even minor side streets can have articles if they can show context and sourcing for why they should have articles (frex, Degrassi Street in Toronto and Christopher Street in New York City are both minor streets with outsized notability claims), and major thoroughfares can fail to qualify for articles if they can't show context and sourcing for why they should have articles (frex, Wellesley Street in Toronto is a thoroughfare, but one whose basis for notability subsumes into a specific city neighbourhood it passes through, and therefore exists on Wikipedia only as a redirect to that neighbourhood rather than standing alone as an independent article topic in its own right.) Bearcat ( talk) 21:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

OK, as soon as I have time, I shall make this a section of Saint-Michel, Montreal and cut/copy and paste all info into that new section of that existin article. The now existing article can the become a redirect. Peter Horn User talk 15:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Done. Peter Horn User talk 16:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply

The redirect looks like a reasonable outcome. I would support that instead of outright deletion. — JFG ^talk 21:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and Bearcat. Not even useful as a redirect as it's unlikely anyone would type in the title and, according to the French naming conventions, the actual street name is reversed as Boulevard Saint-Michel. Ifnord ( talk) 05:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Saint Michel Boulevard did appeared in English language Canadian media for the road, it would be a reasonable redirect to an article title Boulevard Saint-Michel (Montreal) if the road pass GNG. However, it did not and seems only had routine coverage BTW. Matthew_hk t c 10:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Saint-Michel, Montreal as seems to have already been done. The road's origin and history as a pioneer road seems as though it would pass our notability standards on roads, but redirecting to the neighbourhood article with relevant content seems like a fine outcome too. The title is fine for a redirect: it's the road's proper English name, and disambiguation is required from the Saint Michel Boulevard in Paris. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 09:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Saint-Michel, Montreal. I suspect the street could be notable; it has a 200-year old history, but you'd probably need to look in offline French sources to establish that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

LOUD (  | 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 does not appear to be a notable linux distribution. It's a minor ubuntu variant restricted to one university campus, and I can find no reliable secondary sources that would demonstrate notability. Reyk _YO! 18:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I had deleted this as a prod, but then changed my mind and restored because there was some defence of the article on the talk page. But it's all OTHERSTUFF arguments. Spinning Spark 19:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - as not meting WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE, or could be merged into West Virginia University if desired. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no assertion of notability independent of the official website. Even just a quick Google search shows this greatly fails GNG.— Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 08:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

TamerLane (rapper) (  | 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 notable rapper jcc ( tea and biscuits) 18:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable rapper. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete – per source searches under his rapper name and birth name, fails WP:BASIC. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above.— Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 08:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. by user:Ponyo Spinning Spark 19:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Wiki to Wiki (  | 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 and possibly original research {{u| zchrykng}} { T| C} 18:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Deletion note: There's no reason for this to go through an AfD; it's just a made up game and I've deleted it under WP:CSD#A11.-- Jezebel's Ponyo ^{bons mots} 18:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Todd McEwen (  | 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:AUTHOR and with the exception of this, can't find much to satisfy WP:GNG. Toddst1 ( talk) 17:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable writer and academic. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Novelist whose books are reviewed in the New York Times, "IN his second novel, un assumingly titled "McX" and subtitled "A Romance of the Dour," Todd McEwen paints a..." ]. Here: [14] [[The Scotsman reviews McEwen's How Not to be an American,, here: [15], The Guardian reviews his 5 Simple Machines, here: it reviews Who Sleeps with Katz. There's more, of course. Just tag this page for improvement and move on. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• @ CAPTAIN RAJU:, would you be willing to take a closer look at this one? He doesn't seem to be an academic but, rather, a novelist / writer / critic who teaches writing at a university. His books seem to have been widely reviewed. And he is a critic for notable publications. Thanks. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Per WP:BEFORE searches, the subject passes WP:AUTHOR, with his works having received many reviews in independent, reliable sources. Some source examples, which were easily found in basic internet searches, include: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep - He is reviewed and passes WP:AUTHOR.-- FrankTursetta ( talk) 19:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Warwickshire County Cricket Club. Also consensus to merge List of Birmingham Bears Twenty20 players. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 20:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Birmingham Bears Twenty20 Cricket Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The Birmingham Bears are not a separate club, simply the Twenty20 name of Warwickshire, suggest deletion or merging? StickyWicket ( talk) 17:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Definite Merge, it is the same team / squad renamed for a single tournament. Spike 'em ( talk) 18:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Only edited the page as it was a bare template and out of date, but really think it should be merged as there is very little about the Twenty20 side on the Warwickshire County Cricket Club page, and is the same entity as Warwickshire. Harriesss ( talk) 19:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Obvious redirect with the possibility of selective merging some information - depending on whether it's considered desirable to maintain a year by year brief history of T20 performances on the county club page. I'm not sure it is really - perhaps an article which deals with the history of WCCC in the T20 cup might be appropriate as the information to kick start the article is there. It just seems like this section will dominate the article about the club itself fairly soon. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 07:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Whilst you're at it, List of Birmingham Bears Twenty20 players could probably use merging into the appropriate Warwickshire article. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 07:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Merge although merge templates probably should have been used rather than AfD. Same team with different name. Same as how Sussex Sharks don't have an independent article. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 11:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Redirect or merge to Warwickshire County Cricket Club. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Warwickshire County Cricket Club as they are simply the twenty20 part of the club. Dunarc ( talk) 22:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G7. postdlf ( talk) 18:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

List of Birmingham Bears Twenty20 cricket records (  | 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:LISTCRUFT and fails WP:NOTSTATS Dom from Paris ( talk) 16:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 16:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 16:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 16:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 16:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We really need better guidelines on notability of LDS leadership. We've had a large number of these at AfD, and the results seem almost random, based on who happened to show up for any particular AfD. In any case, people at this AfD have not found a common ground, so NC. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Robert C. Gay (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Per source searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to passing mentions, quotations from the subject and name checks. Except for one source that provides a passing mention, the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability on Wikipedia. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep The nominator misused the term "primary source". There is no way to call the published in magazines and newspapers going through editors sources here "primary". Beyond this, I have shown a source from Fortune all about Gay's retirement from HGGC. I have also found multiple indepth sources about his connection with Mitt Romney, and strongly suspect there is more out there. This [26] on Gay might not add much, but it does show another way he gets coverage. We have this article on a speech he gave at UVU [27]. This [28] Salt Lake Tribune article mentions Gay. There are lots of mentions of him under the name Bob Gay in relation to Unitas and Microfinance. I am still looking for a true indepth study, but there are lots of mentions that may add up to something. There is much more there. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment – Below is a synopsis of the sources presented in the !vote directly above. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• [29] – A profile page that provides some coverage
• [30] – Consists mostly of quotations from the subject. There are only four sentences of non-quotation content. In my view this is not significant coverage.
• [31] – Has one sentence about the subject. This is not significant coverage at all.

• Comment This [32] contains multiple mentions of Gay. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment Here [33] we have a book mentioning the Romney doing the intense search for Gay's daughter episode. Here is the Bloomberg entry on Gay [34]. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Meets notability guideline "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". deisenbe ( talk) 10:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Deisenbe: You are citing a threshold at Wikipedia:Notability (people), not the basic criteria. Please see WP:BASIC and also the fallacy of WP:INTERESTING. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails to have substantive coverage. Also I see no claim to "significance". Neither being a general authority of the church, nor a member of the Seventy provides inherent notability. -- Bejnar ( talk) 04:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Indeed, most coverage the subject has received consists of mentions, rather than significant coverage, and there is no presumed notability for religious leaders. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment See also the remarks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo E. Martinez (3rd nomination) regarding no inherent notability for these positions, especially the remarks of editor Bakazaka. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. I would request anyone wishing refund to at least showcase one reliable source additional to the one listed by B, discussing the subject significantly. Lourdes 16:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Milk and Cereal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Mess of an article about an individual song that somehow survived a PROD. The vast majority of the article is about what I guess is a meme where two Virginia Tech students recorded themselves lip syncing the song ... i.e. nothing that belongs in a Wikipedia article. If you take that out, then you have two sentences - one identifying the song and the other telling you where you can order it.

I could only find one reliable source about the song itself - an article from the Huffington Post saying that the authors were not stoned when they made it. (How nice.) B ( talk) 14:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete.Could not find a reliable source for the article and also fails WP:NMUSIC and has no remarkable awards for it in the public platform. Vinodbasker ( talk) 16:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)* reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - This is one weird little article. The original song by G. Love could have possibly been the topic of an article if it was released as a single, etc. But if the point of this article is to describe how some dudes in a dorm room turned it into a meme, that is not even remotely notable given the fact that nobody else noticed except other meme-ers. All sources found are in the meme cloud, with no true media coverage. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 14:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lourdes 16:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Steven Forti (  | 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 do not believe this individual meets WP:GNG or WP:PROF. He is currently a postdoctoral researcher according to this site. The article was written by a single purpose account by user Asqueladd who also wrote the equivalent article in the Spanish Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Cwmhiraeth. I am not a "single purpose account" (at least not more than you, if we need to set a standard). Forti seems to be a postdoctoral researcher, yes. And as far as the entry is concerned all content is sourced by reliable independent sources (book reviews and an article about standout Italian scholars in Catalonia in La Vanguardia). Second source passes WP:GNG "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. (it is one of three)". And addressing WP:PROF, I read the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable" I go back to pointing out how the entire entry is sourced by reliable independent sources (not academic CVs, but actual reviews).--Asqueladd ( talk) 12:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I made a mistake about the single purpose account (stopped for lunch and did not recheck) but I did see you were a regular contributor to the Spanish Wikipedia. So he has written one book and been the editor of another. Can you find more reviews or significant coverage of him in reliable, independent sources? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

The current content is essentially what I've found about the subject in reliable third party sources (that is, adhering to WP:GNG/WP:BIO). Surely we may expand the content about his main work, and we can add the "He contributes as political commentator to CTXT,^{<ref>CTXT</ref>} the Italian edition of Rolling Stone^{<ref>Rolling Stone</ref>} and blah-blah-blah...", but in the first case we would unbalance the entry straying away from topic and in the later case that synthy& OR-ish effort would not improve the entry until we get the independent sources pointing that out in detail, right? I don't think there is an alternative "holistic" biographical account on the subject in reliable third party sources other than La Vanguardia article out there, if that is what you are asking. I'll check later about it as well as about more reviews, though.--Asqueladd ( talk) 13:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• DElete TOOSOON. So far he has produced a doctoral thesis, produced a book (perhaps based on it) and edited one book. Whether he is a post-doc researcher or a lecturer, be has not yet done enough to be WP-notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete does not meet notability guidelines for academics. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

It is not relevant at the academic level. Unnecessary article. -- 85.85.160.92 ( talk) 16:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Postdocs are rarely notable, and this particular individual does not seem to be notable as of yet - not coming close to PROF or AUTHOR - and not passing GNG either. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Earth 2018. Redirects are cheap and this is plausible search term. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Celeste Cortesi (  | 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:BLP1E ^{[ Username Needed} 11:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 5. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable beauty contestant. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth 2018, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term ( WP:ATD-R). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Earth Indonesia § Titleholders. Redirects are cheap and this is a plausible search term. Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Luisa Andrea Soemitha (  | 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:BLP1E ^{[ Username Needed} 11:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable beauty queen. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth Indonesia § Titleholders where the subject is mentioned. A valid search term for readers ( WP:ATD-R). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Earth 2016. Redirects are cheap and this is a plausible search term. Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Allanah Herman-Edgar (  | 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:BLP1E ^{[ Username Needed} 11:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete one source from the pageant itself, one sentence, this non-biography has no reason to be on Wikipedia. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth 2016, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term ( WP:ATD-R). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Earth 2016. Redirects are cheap and this is a plausible search term. Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Tatiana Ovcinicova (  | 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:BLP1E ^{[ Username Needed} 11:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable beauty contestant. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth 2016, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term ( WP:ATD-R). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss International 2017. Redirects are cheap and this is a plausible search term. (non-admin closure) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Bruna Zanardo (  | 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:BLP1E ^{[ Username Needed} 11:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete one source, not even very reliable, is not enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• At the very least, redirect to Miss International 2017, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term ( WP:ATD-R). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Earth Spain. Subject is a plausible search term and redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Noemí Sartal (  | 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:BLP1E ^{[ Username Needed} 11:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable beauty queen. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth Spain, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term ( WP:ATD-R). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Earth 2018. Redirects are cheap and this is a plausible search term (non-admin closure) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Emma Sheedy (  | 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:BLP1E ^{[ Username Needed} 11:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Miss Earth contestants are not default notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth 2018, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term ( WP:ATD-R). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per NA1K. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Earth 2017. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 12:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Lada Akimova (  | 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:BLP1E ^{[ Username Needed} 11:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable beauty queen. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth 2017, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term ( WP:ATD-R). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Miss Earth 2017. Comfortable with redirect since subject is notable for one thing. Lorstaking ( talk) 00:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Earth 2017. (non-admin closure) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Juliana Franco (  | 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:BLP1E ^{[ Username Needed} 11:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable beauty contestant. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth 2017, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term ( WP:ATD-R). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect as above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Earth 2017. (non-admin closure) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Andreia Gibau (  | 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:BLP1E ^{[ Username Needed} 11:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete no show of significant coverage to show notability. Wikipedia really needs to do something about the huge number of junk articles on non-notable people. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth 2017, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term ( WP:ATD-R). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• 'Redirect as above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Earth 2018. Subject is a plausible search term and redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Daria Kartyshova (  | 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:BLP1E ^{[ Username Needed} 11:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete sourcing does not show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth 2018, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term ( WP:ATD-R). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Earth 2018. Subject is a plausible search term and redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Telma Madeira (  | 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:BLP1E ^{[ Username Needed} 11:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete lacking significant secondary coverage to show passing of GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth 2018, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term ( WP:ATD-R). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Señorita Panamá 2017. Subject is a plausible search term and redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Erika Parker (  | 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:BLP1E ^{[ Username Needed} 11:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable beauty queen. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• At the very least, redirect to Señorita Panamá 2017, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term ( WP:ATD-R). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss International 2018. Subject is a plausible search term and redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Ahtisa Manalo (  | 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:BLP1E ^{[ Username Needed} 11:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete not all winners of beauty pageants are notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• At the very least, redirect to Miss International 2018, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term ( WP:ATD-R). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Miss Earth 2018. Sandstein 08:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Keo Senglyhour (  | 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:BLP1E ^{[ Username Needed} 11:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable beauty contestant. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth 2018, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term ( WP:ATD-R). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Earth 2018. Subject is a plausible search term and redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Melissa Flores (  | 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:BLP1E ^{[ Username Needed} 11:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable beauty queen. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth 2018, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term ( WP:ATD-R). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Earth 2017. Subject is a plausible search term and redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Faith Landman (  | 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:BLP1E ^{[ Username Needed} 11:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete beauty queens are not inherently notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth 2017, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term ( WP:ATD-R). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Señorita Panamá. Subject is a plausible search term and redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Diana Lemos (  | 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:BLP1E ^{[ Username Needed} 11:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable beauty pageant contestant. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• At the very least, redirect to Señorita Panamá, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term ( WP:ATD-R). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Earth 2018. Subject is a plausible search term and redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Ratu Vashti Annisa (  | 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:BLP1E ^{[ Username Needed} 11:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable beauty queen. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth 2018, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term ( WP:ATD-R). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Earth 2018. Subject is a plausible search term and redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Dolores Cardoso (  | 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:BLP1E ^{[ Username Needed} 11:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Miss Earth contestants are not default notable. Nothing else shows notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth 2018, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term ( WP:ATD-R). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Earth 2018. Subject is a plausible search term and redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Jaime Vandenberg (  | 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:BLP1E ^{[ Username Needed} 11:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable beauty queen. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth 2018, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term ( WP:ATD-R). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Earth 2018. Consensus is against keeping. Subject is a plausible search term and redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Yashvi Aware (  | 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:BLP1E ^{[ Username Needed} 11:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable beauty contestant. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth 2018, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term ( WP:ATD-R). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Significant coverage in secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG. This one is above the threshold. BabbaQ ( talk) 21:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Miss Earth 2018 She is already mentioned there and it's a good redirect target since all of the sources that mention her are related to her competing in the Miss Earth pageants. Papaursa ( talk) 20:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lourdes 16:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Scooter VIP (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Very elaborate promotional article suitable only for their web site--if there is any notability for online this scooter dealership DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 28. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete: A article on a parts dealership, with large unreferenced detail sections. Verifiable as a company going about its business, but no evidence indicates that it meets the notability criteria. AllyD ( talk) 06:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete: fails WP:NCORP / WP:PROMO and then some. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom. Totally promotional, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ⁺⁺ 15:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lourdes 16:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Benny P. Thomas (  | 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 director ( WP:TOOSOON). Sources provided do not demonstrate any claim to notability, subject has directed a few films, none of which are particularly worthy of note. Was nominated for PROD, which was removed–4 sources to film databases were added, which does not establish notability. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:DIRECTOR. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - No references about the said person in WP:RS. It is unlikely that the director of the early 2000s movies and the one of the 2014 movie are the same as this ref calls the director a newbie. Jupitus Smart 17:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete I can find no reliable secondary sources which discuss the subject of the article. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 22:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lourdes 16:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Lolicore (  | 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 notable. No significant coverage from reliable sources. Appears to be a neologism. —  Newslinger  talk 10:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —  Newslinger  talk 10:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —  Newslinger  talk 10:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —  Newslinger  talk 10:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Only sources are primary. Doesn't seem to be a mainstream genre. – FenixFeather ^{(talk) (Contribs)} 20:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete No references, looks like 100% original research. One of the external links is an open directory hosting pirated doujin albums. RoseCherry64 ( talk) 22:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete Verification and sourcing issues aside, using Wikipedia to increase usage of a neologism is a clear violation of policy ( WP:NOTNEO). Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so this article should not be in Wikipedia. Bakazaka ( talk) 21:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Sadi Ranson (  | 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 author does not appear to meet our notability guidelines for creative professionals. TheDragonFire ( talk) 06:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable poet. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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