The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 ( talk) 23:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Kevin Kimura

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

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

Subject ultimately fails WP:NHOCKEY due to the fact that neither the Japan Ice Hockey League and Asia League Ice Hockey is listed within NHOCKEY's notability criteria. While he did play for the Japan national team he did so in a World Championship qualifier and not in the actual World Championship itself, therefore failing #6. Tay87 ( talk) 23:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 ( talk) 23:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 ( talk) 23:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Tay87 ( talk) 23:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 ( talk) 23:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Tay87 ( talk) 23:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete There are no sources that look plausibly reliable, independent, and significant about this player. Rockphed ( talk) 17:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The sources in the article are just stats databases and do not establish notability. I can find his hockey card for sale and this passing mention in a local community newspaper but I cannot find any significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq ( talk) 23:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• delete Fails to meet either WP:NHOCKEY or the GNG. Sandals1 ( talk) 16:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete As noted fails notability guidelines. Kaiser matias ( talk) 15:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that despite this team's league being a professional league, there's still insufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Wakunaga Leolic

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTEAM Supreme Sports Statistician ( talk) 10:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep: The Japan Handball League is a professional league. At the JHL article was written that it is an non-professional league, but this was wrong. I corrected it and add a source. So all teams of the JHL are important. - Malo95 ( talk) 09:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete The only (even possibly) reliable, independent source I could find is book. I am not sure if it is significant since I can't actually get access to it. There might be more sources in Japanese, but I can't read Japanese. Everything else looks like confirmation that the club exists without actually giving it any treatment. Rockphed ( talk) 18:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Same here as with Rockphed in my searches, and I also can't access that book so I can't verify whether it's a WP:SIGCOV or just a listing. WP:NTEAM is a part of WP:NATH which requires WP:GNG to be met (significant coverage in multiple reliable sources). Since WP:GNG isn't met, delete. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Philosophy Tube

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

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

still not a notable youtuber, the sources that were provided are either not independent coverage or not reliable (blogs that aren't otherwise rs) and interviews. See also the previous AFD Praxidicae ( talk) 22:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep. The Times article is RS and, as far as I can tell without paying to read it all, is not purely an interview. The Evening Standard article looks likewise and, unless we think that Harriet Brewis is HBomberguy in disguise (which seems unlikely given that she has what looks to be a genuine Twitter account), then it seems to be independent. The Vox review looks independent too. This does seem like we have scraped over the line of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I would like to see the use of Twitter as a reference removed but based on what is good here I think it is good enough to keep and work on improving further. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 23:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Following clarification of the independence of the references I'm switching from weak keep to keep. There are still issues to resolve here but I think this is safe for basic notability. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal ( talk) 23:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal ( talk) 23:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal ( talk) 23:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Some pretty weak sourcing, and lots of really crap sourcing. Waggie ( talk) 23:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 00:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep per DanielRigal's !vote above. I don't like using Twitter as a source, either, but that looks to be more a matter for ordinary editing to fix. ( Interviews can count towards wiki-notability, because they represent the "world at large" paying attention to the subject. Claims in them have to be taken with care as they are best regarded as primary sources, but that's beside the point in the present case.) XOR'easter ( talk) 00:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  Editing to strike the adjective. After taking another chance to evaluate the sources, I don't think my "keep" !vote needs to be qualified. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  A passing mention in the news, just for fun. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep (as re-creator): the nominator's rationale is bizarre. What about The Times or Vox is not reliable? I have read the full Times source DanielRigal and I can confirm it is not an interview. (I can also confirm Harriet Brewis is completely unrelated to HBomberguy—see this Twitter thread.) Not sure what relevance Twitter or some "crap sourcing" has to this discussion since I made it completely clear which sources relate to the claim I make of notability.
  I considered this long and hard before moving the article to mainspace and I saw in-depth coverage of two aspects of Thorn's recent works (Shakespeare stream and "Men. Abuse. Trauma") and non-trivial coverage of a third (philosophy education) in multiple works (which can be combined to show notability per WP:BASIC). I find it quite bizarre that I wrote a lengthy rationale here justifying notability and then the nominator has ignored all of it in favour of unsubstantiated assertion that all of the sources are "not independent coverage or not reliable". I repeat: what of The Times or Vox? They also say "see the previous AfD" but that's something I mentioned—five of the seven sources that I present for notability have been released since that AfD. I note that XOR'easter also believes interviews can count towards notability, something I wanted to avoid as I know it's a disputed point, but if we agree with that premise then indeed the Evening Standard and BBC Radio sources provided very strong additional evidence of notability. — Bilorv ( talk) 06:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep but improve: the information and sources are there. He’s also done stage acting in some notable productions, stand-up, and writing (for HuffPost UK and The Independent), which could be incorporated as well. Also minimal use of primary sources, like for birthdays, is fine so long as there are enough secondary/tertiary sources to prove notability — Starklinson, 3 September 2019

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 ( talk) 23:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Square root of 10

Square root of 10 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Declined PROD (not originally by me). But I agree that this isn't a sufficiently interesting number to have an article for. The guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Irrational numbers would seem not to favor this. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 20:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 20:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. See Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Notability of specific individual numbers. This number has no special significance in mathematics, and no special properties distinct from other composite square roots. Its only cultural significance is (if one believes what is written in this article) as a bad and unsourced approximation to π, much worse than some of the ancient approximations described in Approximations of π and not even mentioned among the many many approximations described in that article. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete I have heard the bit about it being an ancient approximation to π, and as far as π lore goes it can probably be sourced, but that's not enough to build an article upon. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• This content would not be much use in writing about where and by whom the hemibel is used. Uncle G ( talk) 00:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I've also read about its use in approximating π, but as it's currently unsourced, there is no need for a merger. This one property alone doesn't seem enough for an article; I'm also not aware of any major formulas where this number appears. ComplexRational ( talk) 02:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - we do not need to have articles on square roots of individual numbers. Vorbee ( talk) 06:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Quadratic integer #Square root of integers. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 11:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  Now Square_root#Square_roots_of_positive_integers to avoid deletionst paroxysms in Quadratic integer. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 10:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per above, unless this could be merged with something related. Grapefruit17 ( talk) 15:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  @ Grapefruit17: see above – the target went missing due to edit warring; it was not my fault. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 10:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. FWIW, I find this number to be very interesting, but it's clearly not notable. Our readers could find the value faster on a calculator than searching for it here. Bearian ( talk) 18:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Wikipedia does not need entire articles for specific numbers, unless those numbers are somehow significant. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here} 13:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Maybe move the content to either a list of square roots or a list of approximations of pi, but only if sourcing can be found. I think a similar test for irrational numbers to the one for integers in Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) should be devised. At least the "3 interesting, unrelated properties" should be applied. Rockphed ( talk) 17:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • list of square roots is now only a redirect. And before it was a redirect, it was simply a list of a few articles about square roots. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It can have the structure of other similar articles like square root of five with proof of irrationality, continued fraction expansion, geometric, trigonometric and even logarithmic aspects and identities, etc.-- 185.53.199.210 ( talk) 21:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down ( talk) 20:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Júlio César Alves

Júlio César Alves (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

If there is an article about the doping scandal then he would be a candidate for a redirect but, as it stands, the article does not meet our inclusion criteria. Jbh ^Talk 20:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:BLP1E, perhaps a redirect if the events themselves justify a future article on the doping scandal (should it be considered one, I have no view on that). Guy ( Help!) 20:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Undecided as it is difficult for me to see whether this person is notable for more than the one event and if there was a legal decision on the case, also because Júlio César Alves is a super common name and I do not know how to verify which further sources refer to the same person. There is a Júlio César Alves Ferreira who is director of a health related organization Prohab. [1] I wouldn't see where else than in the Roberto Carlos article the event could be mentioned (and I would have guessed fans would make sure it could not survive there but I was wrong). I would say there should be an article Doping in Brazil and now requested it like there are Doping in the United States, Doping in Russia, Doping in China. As I saw, the author of one of the sources here even has his own article as doping expert in which the report involving Júlio César Alves is mentioned. ( Hajo Seppelt#Other reports) Omikroergosum ( talk) 21:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom – Leviv ich 04:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per BLP1E. Giant Snowman 10:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per BLP1E. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 20:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. I think we could potentially be on the way to having Doping in Brazil as a notable topic, but even so it would go against WP:BLPCRIME to mention this individual there. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 15:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per WP:BLP1E. Barca ( talk) 20:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 18:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

Brios

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jimfbleak per A7 and G11. ( non-admin closure) Shellwood ( talk) 11:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND; no reliable sources discussing this band appear to exist. PROD objected by creator. ComplexRational ( talk) 20:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ComplexRational ( talk) 20:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 ( talk) 20:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Rajib Karmakar

Rajib Karmakar (  | 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 references appear to me mainly mentions, with a few press releases put in. The page was deleted before and now restored. Zinzhanglee ( talk) 13:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems like the consensus indicates that the sources are not adequate. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Tanha Jafrin

Tanha Jafrin (  | 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 actress. Of the four cited sources, three are variations on a press release saying a movie is 90% complete. Searches found no indication that it was ever completed or released. The fourth is about a movie that was eventually released in 2017, but there's scant evidence that it is notable, and the only Tanha in it is Tanha Mousumi (not Jafrin). Searches of the usual Google types, including by Bengali script, found nothing in reliable sources for Tanha Jafrin and nothing deeper for Tanha Mousumi than the cast list for the aforementioned 2017 movie. Comprehensively fails to meet any notability guideline. Worldbruce ( talk) 19:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 19:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 19:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.-- Nahal ^(T) 08:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.-- Nahal ^(T) 08:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.-- Nahal ^(T) 08:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment. There are several references in the corresponding Bangla article at bn:তানহা জাফরিন and a Google News search for the Bangla name "তানহা জাফরিন" & "তানহা মৌমাছি" generates several more possible references.-- Nahal ^(T) 11:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

The references in the two language versions are the same. The bn.wikipedia reference list only looks longer because it repeats the same link to two regurgitations of a press release. The sole Google News hit for "তানহা জাফরিন" [Tanha Jafrin/Zafrin] is a trivial mention in a "what's on TV tonight" article. There are eleven Google News hits for "তানহা মৌমাছি" [Tanha Mousumi], but nothing deeper than a cast list or photo caption, and nothing equating Jafrin with Mousumi. In my experience of Bangladeshi entertainment coverage, if Mousumi were a new name for Jafrin (married name, return to maiden name, stage name, etc.) the sources would say so. There's also a strong tendency for the press to refer back to an actor's debut work and/or their most recent work ("so-and-so, who first came into prominence in such-and-such" or "so-and-so recently gained popularity for such-and-such"), but nothing in the Mousumi coverage ties back to the work of Jafrin. Combining the two is original research. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 16:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete seems to be mainly unverifiable with the possible confusion of two different actresses, at the least it is unclear and therefore deletion is needed, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - WP:TOOSOON - not enough of a notable career yet - hasn't had significant roles in multiple notable films per WP:NACTOR - I couldn't even find listings for her films (although language may have played a part there, but usually if foreign films are at all notable even a search in English will turn up something) - Epinoia ( talk) 01:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article was extensively reworked after the last relist. Unfortunately, there wasn't any real evaluation of the new version. I'll go with keep rather than NC, but I'll also add the proviso that if anybody still thinks this isn't good, feel free to bring it back for another nomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

J. Brent Bill

J. Brent Bill (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No references in RS I can find, fails WP:AUTHOR. Article has also been extensively edited by an editor whose username certainly implies a COI. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 13:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 13:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Doesn’t even make a claim of notability. Mccapra ( talk) 20:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - borderline A7, but the number of books is probably a claim to notability. However, as they don't have appeared to garnered any critical attention, fails WP:AUTHOR. Lack of any coverage means WP:GNG is also failed of course. Hug ^syrup 16:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 13:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 13:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 13:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep as Worldcat shows 2600 library holdings which indicates that there should be coverage such as reviews offline if not online imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 16:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

This is a classic argument to avoid: WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Sources must be verifiable, and if we're only assuming that they exist, they're not verifiable. Hug ^syrup 08:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• • But, as usual, reviews have been found, so it is a reliable indicator Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep -- The Quakers are a particular religious group. Reviews of books which they may consider significant may not reach the kind of media being searched. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Four of his books have been reviewed by Publishers Weekly. [2] [3] [4] [5] Haukur ( talk) 15:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  And here are reviews in Friends Journal. [6] [7] And a Quaker best-seller list: [8] This is only after a cursory search. Haukur ( talk) 16:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• You're the boss. I rewrote the article using the sources above and several more. Haukur ( talk) 22:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Question does anyone know of any other articles about authors that look like this one? It looks like a publisher’s promo leaf or the back cover of a potboiler. Is notability usually supported by review in these publications? Mccapra ( talk) 08:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  A great question. The book reviews make the case for "sustained critical attention" as per WP:AUTHOR. But I agree that this list of books with summarized reviews isn't a great style for an engaging article. The problem with authors that are notable but not super notable is that we often lack the kind of sources that we would ideally like - sources that look at the author's corpus as a whole rather than just dealing with one book at a time. But even with just the sources we have here it would be possible to create a more readable article. For an article based principally on book reviews but worked into more coherent prose I've recently worked on Tom Kratman. And then there's Morag Hood (author) which is particularly difficult because there I've not been able to find a single negative comment in any review of her books – I fear that this makes the article on her look like something a publisher might compile. (To be fair, Hood is an excellent author and I can't think of anything negative to say about her books either.) In Bill's case we at least have a number of critical comments. Oh, and my most recent creation is Camille Bacon-Smith which I think isn't so bad even though it's based almost entirely on book reviews. I'd still be grateful for any ideas on how to improve these articles. Haukur ( talk) 09:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your work on improving this Haukur. I’m not really convinced that the subject of the article is notable, but it’s marginal, and if the consensus is to keep that’s fine. Mccapra ( talk) 11:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Harold Adams

Harold Adams (  | 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:MUSIC and WP:GNG. A google search further confirmed this. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 06:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 06:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 06:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - there's no evidence he's played beyond the Baltimore metro area, thus failing WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian ( talk) 18:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails both WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 18:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Next Door (Billy Peterson and David Hazeltine album)

Next Door (Billy Peterson and David Hazeltine album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, and I can't find any reliable independent sources discussing this record. Article creator has username similar to that of the record label which put out this album. Both artists are individually notable, hence no obvious redirect target, per WP:XY. Richard3120 ( talk) 18:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 ( talk) 18:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 ( talk) 18:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete due to a lack of significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. I would normally prefer a redirect for non-notable albums like this one, but I agree with the nominator that a redirect does not work for an album released by two individually notable artists. I think deletion is the best option here. Aoba47 ( talk) 17:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Huzoor Muhad’dith e Kabeer Hazrat Allama Zia ul Mustafa Qaadiri Amjadi

Huzoor Muhad’dith e Kabeer Hazrat Allama Zia ul Mustafa Qaadiri Amjadi (  | 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 problem may relate to spelling. For instance, I can't find this "Shari' Council". And I can't figure out what his name is, which again is probably a spelling issue not helped by the name in the lead not matching the title. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment Not sure whether HamariWeb is considered a WP:RS, but I found this Urdu source: [9] Moaz786 ( talk to me or see what I've been doing) 00:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no reliable sources, and really no claim of notability at all save his speaking to large crowds in a very large country. Bearian ( talk) 18:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• I exhausted my patience with such titles over a decade ago. Is there any chance that someone familiar with the subject's culture could tell us what his name is, without surrounding it with honorifics? Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

That would be Zia ul Mustafa Qaadiri Amjadi. Moaz786 ( talk to me or see what I've been doing) 23:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails WP:GNG and ow there are thousands of Islamic scholars not clear how the subject is notable and lacks third party sources. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 18:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Liberation Entertainment

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

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

None of the sources mentioned in the article, nor any sources I could find myself, help this subject meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The sources are either not in-depth, unreliable or not secondary. MrClog ( talk) 18:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MrClog ( talk) 18:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MrClog ( talk) 18:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MrClog ( talk) 18:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - non-notable, now defunct, film distribution company - some of the films listed in the Liberation Entertainment article, for example The Old Curiosity Shop (1984 film), have recently been nominated for AfD, but they were produced by Burbank Animation Studios and are listed in that article - the Liberation Entertainment article says their film library was sold to Camelot Entertainment, but the Camelot Entertainment Group article does not mention Liberation Entertainment - Epinoia ( talk) 01:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect at editorial discretion Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Brocks Hill Primary School

Brocks Hill Primary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME as it is a primary school with no sources (as of now). A merge could be possible if contents are added. William2001^{( talk)} 17:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete nothing even close to suggesting notability, and we do not keep articles for sub-secondary schools unless they are clearly and without dispute notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete as noted above there is nothing to suggest this school has the notability that would be needed for it to merit an article. Moreover much of the content seems trivial. Dunarc ( talk) 20:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Oadby per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

NewtonX, Inc.

NewtonX, Inc. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

An unremarkable startup. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The NewtonX, Inc. article's citations include Tech Crunch [10], VentureBeat [11], Forbes [12], and Inc. [13]--all of which are authoritative publications with respect to the field of business. The fact that these reliable sources discuss NewtonX, Inc. attest to its notability (passes WP:CORP, WP:RS and WP:GNG). desmay ( talk) 02:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ Desmay: The Tech Crunch and VentureBeat sources look good; however, the Inc. article only mention NewtonX in a single sentence, and the paragraph about NewtonX in the Forbes article is written by one of the company's co-founders. Do you really think this is enough to pass NCORP? – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 21:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Well, you've acknolwedged that "the Tech Crunch and VentureBeat sources look good". If NewtonX, Inc. wasn't notable, Inc. wouldn't mention it at all. If Forbes has asked the company's co-founder to author an article about Newton X, Inc., don't you think that means that NewtonX, Inc. holds importance and is not just a lemonade stand in a small town? Besides, WP:CORP says that "Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products" as long as reliable sources, such as those you acknolwedged above, exist. Wikipedia itself has an article called " List of former employees of McKinsey & Company", which includes the company's founders and the article, as it is written now, fullfills the criteria provided in WP:ORGCRIT. desmay ( talk) 20:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply
      • Comment The criteria for notability for companies/organization is fully documented in WP:NCORP and requires references to have in-depth "Independent Content" on the company. "Independent Content" is defined in WP:ORGIND. Desmay, none of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The TechCrunch reference is based on an interview with Chastel and there is nothing in the article that is "clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company". The INC article is a mention-in-passing (describing Sascha as the COO/founder of NetwonX, nothing more) and fails WP:ORGIND. The Venturebeat article is based on a company announcements and fails WP:ORGIND. The Forbes article is also a mention in passing (again, describing Sascha Eder, nothing more). HighKing ⁺⁺ 21:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep The company raised twelve million dollars in Series A funding alone, a fact that has been reported in various media sources, such as TC and VB. Eliko007 ( talk) 21:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Raising funding isn't a notability criteria and never will be. scope_creep ^Talk 12:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete An article about about a classic startup that fails WP:NCORP that was specifically meant to address these types of articles. Also asserts WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH as the majority of the references are driven by press releases. 8 of the 15 state twelve million dollars in Series A funding. Of the remaining seven, one is non-rs, another one is initial funding, leaving two. One of remaining, the Inc article is a name drop for the company, the remaining is a magazine that markets startups and other general run of the mill business news. Very very poor sourcing. There is no secondary sources whatsoever, they are all primary, run of the mill business news. scope_creep ^Talk 12:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment: The TechCrunch article was not a press release. It was an article on the company. All of the sourcing for the article are from reliable sources and none of them are press releases. Knox490 ( talk) 20:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Tech Crunch, VentureBeat, Forbes and Inc. top tier business publications are not easy publications to be noted by. They are major business publications which serve as gatekeepers in terms of what business news is important. The reason why these major publications are covering NewtonX is that it is using cutting technology, namely artificial intelligence (AI) to find experts. And like it or not, we live in technological age where experts have a huge influence on the world and are often in short supply. AI is very important right now and starting to make dramatic results already (For example, AI right can now can shift through stacks of resumes and spit out a select few select resumes of candidates. Recently, a large truck of beer was driven from city to city by a driverless truck). AI is starting to be a big disruptor and game changer and that is why $15M of funding recently went to Newton X. Frankly, even though I took many computer and information systems management courses, the pace of success in AI applications has even surprised me. Knox490 ( talk) 04:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Being top tier doesn't indicate the article is notable and every device and piece of software now being developed on the planet is now using some form of AI either for development or in production. The Tech Crunch is reporting 12million in funding, same as the other 8, so it is press release and non-RS. VentureBeat is the same. From Forbes it states Our company grew in its first year That is not independent and is non-RS. The last Inc. is a name drop. Hardly the gatekeepers.

scope_creep ^Talk 11:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The TechCrunch article was not a press release. It was an article on the company.

The VentureBeat article indicates: "What struck us about NewtonX is that they’re attempting to create a paradigm shift in the B2B expertise market. Incumbent market research firms, consulting firms, and expert networks used to rely on preexisting pools of expert consultants,” he said. “We believe NewtonX is turning this model on its head by automating custom searches to recruit the best experts in real time for any given client request and, in doing so, is capable of transforming multiple industries." [14]

One of NewtonX's owners essentially said, "its proprietary speech-to-text software enables it to deliver surveys and reports at twice the speed and half the cost of traditional panels". [15]

The funding, technology and news coverage point to NewtonX being a transformational company. Wikipedia should create articles on transformational companies such as NewtonX. Knox490 ( talk) 20:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment The TechCrunch article is based on an interview with Chastel and fails WP:ORGIND. It is churnalism and contains no "Independent Content" with original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Both the Inc and Forbes articles are mentions in passing, e.g. "Sascha Eder, COO/Founder of NewtonX" and fails SIGCOV and CORPDEPTH. The Venturebeat article is based on a company announcement and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing ⁺⁺ 21:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Entirely promotional and not a single reference (including the ones mentioned above) meet the criteria for establishing notability, nor am I able to locate a single reference that meets the criteria. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ⁺⁺ 21:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep: The article passes WP:GNG; a simple Google search alone provides 227,000 results for NewtonX. [16] There are plenty more sources about this company available than what are currently present in the article.-- AR E N Z O Y 1 6A •t a l k• 12:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Hey Renzoy16, great!! But your !vote is likely to be discounted (as per WP:GHITS) so perhaps you can link to *any two* references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability below and then perhaps some of the Delete !voters will change their minds!. HighKing ⁺⁺ 21:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Looks like your typical (i.e. non-notable) early stage tech startup. I don't put much weight in TechCrunch or VentureBeat. They're WP:RS, certainly, but they're rather indiscriminate about what they write about. If you're a tech startup and send them a press release, they'll probably cover it. Please see WP:THREE. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep: This article passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP. While it's obviously a smaller company relatively, enough sources have been written about it to keep the article (these, for example, in addition to the ones mentioned above: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11--it's not that any single one of these articles alone are a "slam dunk" to keeping the article, but combined together, they show the subject meets GNG). I also think that if there are any problems with the article in its current form, they are fixable, per WP:RUBBISH. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 00:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Response Your admission that not "any single one of these articles alone" meets the criteria for establishing notability essentially translates to your agreement that according to our own guidelines this topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Also, the references you've listed *all* fail the criteria for example funding notices, articles based on company announcements, podcasts with people affiliated with the company and articles written by people affiliated with the company. The examples you've provided are explicitly listed as *not* meeting the criteria for establishing notability as they fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH and/or are "trivial coverage". HighKing ⁺⁺ 13:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Come on people, learn how to recognize press releases when they bite you on the nose. Knox490 claims, above, that the Venture Beat article is original writing, not a press release, and cites this quote: What struck us about NewtonX is that they’re attempting to create a paradigm shift in the B2B expertise market. That same line was used by Pulse 2.0, by VC News Daily, by Built in NYC, etc. Perhaps all those publications just happened to think of that sentence on their own? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Ooops, I didn't remember that I'd !voted already in this AfD, so striking the duplicate. The comment still holds, though. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Joshilla

Joshilla (  | 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:NCORP and WP:GNG. None of the sources of the article are independent, and one of them has a virus (I removed it). I could not find independent WP:RS with significant coverage. Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 16:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - run of the mill company. Bearian ( talk) 19:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete No reliable source. Barca ( talk) 20:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages not a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ⁺⁺ 22:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator (via blanking) after I presented evidence that the sources supported redirecting it to a related topic rather than keeping it. For disclosure's sake, I was technically a voter in the discussion, but the nominator blanked this discussion and implemented the redirect themself after I suggested that option, so they obviously have no objection to just closing this. Bearcat ( talk) 00:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

KVDO-TV

KVDO-TV (  | 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 references Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 16:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 16:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 16:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. On a newspapers.com search, I got 1,927 hits for "KVDO Corpus Christi", which means there's more than enough coverage to salvage this with. Bearcat ( talk) 22:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Update: On second thought, this should be a redirect to KIII. One of the sources I've now found really clarifies the actual situation much better than the article did, and despite the several years that had passed between the death of KVDO in 1957 and the launch of the still extant KIII in 1964, KIII was essentially a revival of KVDO rather than a genuinely new station — although it took a while, KIII's launch flowed directly out of KVDO's efforts to revive itself on a VHF channel after failing on UHF, and KIII's call sign was even supposed to be KVDO until its owners decided to start fresh with a new call sign. So KVDO should really be treated as a section within the overall history of KIII rather than a standalone topic of its own, because they're ultimately phases within the history of the same TV station rather than distinct TV stations. Bearcat ( talk) 23:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Bearcat.-- Tdl1060 ( talk) 22:49, 2 September 2019 (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. No objection if someone wants to move the existing article on the 2017 event to this title; that doesn't require admin action. RL0919 ( talk) 16:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

CVB Snooker Challenge

CVB Snooker Challenge (  | 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 needed, series article for an event that happened once (and there is no sign that it will happen again. 2017 CVB Snooker Challenge already exists for the event, no need for two articles about one event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{( talk • contribs)} 16:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of cue sports-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{( talk • contribs)} 16:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete this article, but then Move 2017 CVB Snooker Challenge over top of this. If it happened one time and we consider it a notable event, we don’t need two articles. But why numerate it by year if it happened once? This would be the simpler title for that article. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - A "China v Britain Snooker Challenge" was announced for 2018: https://theoldgreenbaize.com/2018/08/21/world-snooker-to-host-its-own-ryder-cup-event-later-this-year/ but never took place. A note about this could perhaps be added to the article, but currently there has only been one edition. Nigej ( talk) 17:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to 2017 CVB Snooker Challenge, no need for two articles about one event. - MA Javadi ( talk) 22:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 ( talk) 16:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Opekkha (2018 film)

Opekkha (2018 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NFILM & WP:GNG. Didn't won any award, have no review from any independent source & have no independent, significant covarage. 1st one is a primary source (interview), 2nd & 3rd one is interview mixed with a press release masquerading as an article. I also tried with google but found nothing. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 16:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Spam created by the movie's editor. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 09:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. no notable film, Fails WP:NFILM. I checked all of reference but i didn't find any source passes WP:GNG.-- Nahal ^(T) 10:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Spam. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 02:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete advertisement and spam ~ Nahid ^Talk 10:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:NFILM, not notable - MA Javadi ( talk) 17:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

H.Q. School System

H.Q. School System (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - does not meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia ( talk) 04:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Austrey School

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

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

No independent source found for this for-profit school in Pakistan, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. We can't have an article on every school as this will make us a listing website, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete as I haven't been able to find any reliable, independent sources about this school. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - does not meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia ( talk) 04:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

The Right Way School System

The Right Way School System (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent source found for the for-profit school, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. We can't have an article on every school as this will make us a listing website, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - very small and ordinary parochial school. Bearian ( talk) 18:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - does not meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia ( talk) 04:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Stars Grammar High School

Stars Grammar High School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent source found for the for-profit school, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. We can't have an article on every school as this will make us a listing website, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete as I've been unable to find any reliable, independent sources about the school. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - does not meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia ( talk) 04:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Elementary Montessori System High School

Elementary Montessori System High School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent source found for the for-profit school, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. We can't have an article on every school as this will make us a listing website, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 14:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 14:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 14:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete A lack of sourcing leads to a failure of notability. A WP:MILL school with no evidence. AmericanAir88^{( talk)} 23:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - does not meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia ( talk) 04:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Concept School of Learning

Concept School of Learning (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent source found for the for-profit school, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete A Google search does not show enough notability. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 10:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - does not meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia ( talk) 04:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Gabriel "Gabe" Azoulay

Gabriel "Gabe" Azoulay (  | 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 individual that does not meet notability. The sourcing in the article are a bunch of interviews from unreliable sources, and self-published books by the subject. I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Whpq ( talk) 13:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 14:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 14:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 14:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete 5 of the 8 sources are interviews (which do not contribute toward notability) in non-reliable sources, and the remaining 3 sources are generic book results (Google Books, Amazon, Goodreads). A quick Web search does not indicate there is anything better to be found. The text reads like a resume and does not describe anything notable about the subject, just regular business activities. Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. The self-published books do not lend weight to notability in this instance. - Lopifalko ( talk) 14:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete notability is not shown through interviews and generaic sales listings. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Miss Intercontinental 2019

Miss Intercontinental 2019 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The article did not meet the notability guidelines as per WP:GNG. The mother article had been recreated even with another title ("pageant" was added in the title) and deleted many times as evidenced by the links provided below:

• Miss Intercontinental Pageant: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Miss_Intercontinental_Pageant&action=edit&redlink=1
• Miss Intercontinental: /info/en/?search=Miss_Intercontinental

• NOTE: Also, nominating for deletion: Miss Intercontinental 2018

-- Richie Campbell ( talk) 13:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC) Richie Campbell ( talk) 13:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete and salt as per previous AfDs - notability not established, no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG - Epinoia ( talk) 04:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editors disagree on the significance of retiring a jersey number. Since it's done by the player's own team, is it really a "well-known and significant award or honor". No agreement on that. I guess naming the team's mascot after a player falls under the same umbrella. I'm waffling between closing this as keep and NC, but here's clearly no consensus to delete, so I'm not going to worry about that too much. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Trevor Erhardt

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

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

Subject seems to fail WP:NHOCKEY as he played 87 games in the Eishockey-Bundesliga and at least 200 is needed to pass #2. He also never played international hockey in order to pass #6. Tay87 ( talk) 00:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 ( talk) 00:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 ( talk) 00:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tay87 ( talk) 00:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 ( talk) 00:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Tay87 ( talk) 00:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable hockey player. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep, as a player whose jersey number has been retired, failing the "number of games" criteria doesn't make him non-notable. "Legendary" according to all of the first couple of news articles I could find. picture of his retired number. All-time top scorer of Frankfurt Lions for more than 20 years [17], 86 goals and 114 assists in 45 matches. At the very very least worth a redirect to Frankfurt Lions or Löwen Frankfurt. — Kusma ( t· c) 13:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

  Doesn't he actually meet WP:NHOCKEY #3? — Kusma ( t· c) 20:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep per accomplishments in Hockey..if consensus is he does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. He definitely Passes WP:ANYBIO ( a well known honor or award being his retired #27 Jersey). The Mining Gazette Trevor, is regarded as one of the all-time fan favorites in Frankfurt, Germany, hockey lore. The Calgary native played there for both Eintracht and ESC Frankfurt. His retired number 27 now hangs from the rafters in Eissporthalle Frankfurt Ice Arena. He also played for Team Canada in the 1988-89 Spengler Cup where he faced an American team in the final who were bolstered by local legend Mark Maroste. Many foreign language sources exist. Frankfurter Neue Presse, Referred to as Frankfurt ice hockey legend Trevor Erhardt. in another Franfurter Neue Presse article. There is SIGCOV, it is just in Europress. He has a German Wikipedia page as well. Wm335td ( talk) 18:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Notable as discussed above. Szzuk ( talk) 09:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete the retired jersey does not meet anybio #1 "the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor," as it comes from his own team and this is a tradition in a lot of clubs to honour their own players so if we follow that logic that would mean that every player in any club in any sport that has had his jersey retired would automatically meet this criteria. The criteria for a lot of sports are not very stringent and he fails as is but at the top of WP:NSPORT it states clearly The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. and this is the acid test, he does not meet WP:GNG. -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 00:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• They named their mascot after him, if anybody doubts this is one of this club's most significant players. — Kusma ( t· c) 12:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep, the subject meets WP:GNG when considering the German-language sources available. Flibirigit ( talk) 13:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Miss Intercontinental 2018

Miss Intercontinental 2018 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The article did not meet the notability guidelines as per WP:GNG. The mother article had been recreated even with another title ("pageant" was added in the title) and deleted many times as evidenced by the links provided below:

• Miss Intercontinental Pageant: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Miss_Intercontinental_Pageant&action=edit&redlink=1
• Miss Intercontinental: /info/en/?search=Miss_Intercontinental

• NOTE: Also, nominating for deletion: Miss Intercontinental 2019

-- Richie Campbell ( talk) 13:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC) Richie Campbell ( talk) 13:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable pageant. ApprenticeFan work 23:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete and salt as per previous AfDs - notability not established, no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG - Epinoia ( talk) 04:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

2019 King Air 350 crash

2019 King Air 350 crash (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

While sad, and the subject of routine news reporting, this is not an event likely to have ongoing significance or receive sustained coverage. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Hug ^syrup 13:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete: no indication of any lasting significance to this accident, just another weather-related crash, one of hundreds for this aircraft type. - Ahunt ( talk) 14:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt ( talk) 00:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep or at least wait and see - the incident made international news, and while not all King Air crashes with fatalities will necessarily be notable, the international scope of this accident (a New Zealand couple perished) may lead to this incident receiving ongoing coverage. It already passes WP:GNG, just need to wait and see if it's lasting. SportingFlyer T· C 04:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment What's the difference between this crash and a medevac crash here [18] which doesn't have an article? ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
    • This crash received international news and is still continuing to receive coverage [19] while yours was a local general aviation crash of a Piper which barely scrapes by WP:GNG. WP:OSE. SportingFlyer T· C 18:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply
      • See also [20], which is from 12 hours ago. SportingFlyer T· C 19:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply
        • Comment: Still covered by WP:NOTNEWSPAPER
          • I'm really not so sure. Everyone's claiming this is routine, but coverage is continuing especially in local media, and it's currently the 8th deadliest crash of 2019 worldwide and had more fatalities than the Essendon crash. I'm just not sure why people are coming to the conclusion this is "common" or why we would be in a rush to delete it. SportingFlyer T· C 05:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Not significant relative to other light aircraft crashes, no otherwise-notable persons involved. Rosbif73 ( talk) 06:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:AIRCRASH: light aircraft, no notable death, no procedure change.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 06:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not tragic, but non-notable run of the mill everyday tragedy-- Petebutt ( talk) 11:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete This type of accident is quite common and non notable. The chance of this crash changing any procedures is very small. - Samf4u ( talk) 16:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Nine people dying in a medevac aircraft crash (themselves pretty rare) seems to me to be pretty notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I flew as a medevac pilot for many years and actually medevac flights are high risk and accidents on them are very common, even WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Would you think a road ambulance accident would be worthy of an article? Those happen on a daily basis in North America. - Ahunt ( talk) 16:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply
    • With nine deaths? Really? I don't think so. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Neutral Please keep in mind WP:RAPID. The crash just happened and there is international coverage of the event. There is still news coming out on fatalities and cause. However, these incidents are unfortunately common and so far, no notability has been established with this particular crash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanAir88 ( talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Hamed Baradaran

Hamed Baradaran (  | 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. deleted in fawiki ( AfD link).   ARASH PT  talk  13:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   ARASH PT  talk  13:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 13:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails GNG and MUSICBIO. Thank you to ARASH PT for providing the useful link of AfD in Farsi Wikipedia. Farhikht ( talk) 13:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails GNG and his bio on Farsi Wikipedia which is his native language has been deleted several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by صدیق صبري ( talk • contribs) 09:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down ( talk) 11:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Luke Southwood

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

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

Previously deleted by PROD. Fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (no appearances in a fully-professional league - his two first-team appearances for Accies were for their U21 team in the Challenge Cup). Giant Snowman 12:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nominator's rationale per criteria of WP:NFOOTBALL: (no appearances in a fully-professional league Wm335td ( talk) 19:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Tribe Capital

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

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

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. References appear to be based on company announcements failing WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing ⁺⁺ 11:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing ⁺⁺ 11:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete: does not meet WP:NORG; just a directory listing on an unremarkable venture fund. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 10:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 ( talk) 12:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Lesane Casino

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

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

No reliable sources in the article (thefamouspeople.com obviously doesn't count) and I can find absolutely nothing about the subject in any reliable source. Therefore fails WP:GNG. Hug ^syrup 10:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 11:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 11:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 11:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Non notable musician. Fails GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 11:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 10:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Multiple changes to Keep per wp:HEY work done. The article has also tailored itself to be a bit clearer about its primary purpose (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Wooded landscape with gipsies round a camp fire

Wooded landscape with gipsies round a camp fire (  | 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 page is not clear on the subject: the lost painting, the etching, the published print or the forgery. None of the sources "provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention". Source #1 (British Museum) is more like a primary source - it basically just verifies "yup, this exists" - no suggestion of notability there. Sources #2, #4, #5 are about the BBC programme - no notability of the painting there (and certainly none of the etching or print). Source #3 (Tate) is again more a library reference than a secondary source (and again no verification of the claim that the print is notable, and again - why would the painting be notable even if the print was?). Notability template has been up for two weeks - it's time to discuss this properly. CapnZapp ( talk) 09:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CapnZapp ( talk) 09:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CapnZapp ( talk) 09:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Week keep or Merge to Thomas Gainsborough (Ideally we should have a List of works by Thomas Gainsborough one day). Not seeing any discussion of this work beyond a sentence that it existed and another that it was recently forged. While many artworks are independently notable, such sub-stubs should not be treated any different that yellow-page like company entries or stats-only sport bios. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC) PS. Changed to week keep or merge per Eastmain's source which is indeed longer than 1-2 sentences. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The description at https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/gainsborough-landscape-with-gipsies-n05845 seems reasonably in-depth. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  What conclusions do you draw from this, if any? It seems we must first agree on what subject should the article focus on? The print is the only item Tate characterises as "famous". And even if we do agree to focus the article on the print I would like to see a more "regular" source confirming that notability (if nothing else making our article not rely on a single source) - if it really is famous, that should not be hard to confirm (maybe in scholarly works on Gainsborough?) CapnZapp ( talk) 08:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep, well sourced (British Museum, Tate, Fake or Fortune? production), an interesting example of Gainsborough's work. Randy Kryn ( talk) 10:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  I am not questioning the existence of the article subject; I am questioning its notability (at least given the five sources present). And I am pointing out the article can't decide whether it is about the lost painting, the etching, the published print or the forgery. In that light, could I ask you to revisit your statement? Cheers CapnZapp ( talk) 12:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• It's about all of the topics related to the painting. The museum sources seem to hold up the nobility, and the television show episode (which leads off the season) affirms its notability. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Personally I don't consider having a museum page or inclusion on Fake or Fortune to establish notability. But let's await further discussion. Cheers CapnZapp ( talk) 13:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Really, why not? WP:PUBLISHED "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." Johnbod ( talk) 22:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Thomas Gainsborough or Keep - I don't think much of the nom - the subject is clearly Gainsborough's composition, in whatever form, which is fine. It would help if the print were uploaded to Commons. The BM info, taken from a book, would itself be enough to establish notability, so the nom is way out there. There certainly will be sufficient coverage in sources not online, and there is no requirement that coverage be online. Johnbod ( talk) 20:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

There absolutely is no requirement for sources to be online and I have not suggested that there is. If you can provide good offline sources to establish notability then this AfD has succeeded where the Notability template failed. Cheers CapnZapp ( talk) 21:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Notability for works of art is usually accepted as one good source. Here there are three, kind of a stretch to even nominate it. question:Was it fake or fortune? Randy Kryn ( talk) 22:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

The article has been considerably expanded (3 Sept) & I've changed to firm keep above. Time to withdraw the nom really. Johnbod ( talk) 15:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Invoking WP:NOTAVOTE here. Under-weighting numerous spa votes which were generally light in WP:PAG based arguments. Based on the depth of analysis and policy/guideline based points in the discussion, consensus favors deletion. WP:DRV is <<< that away. Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Billion Surprise Toys

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

Billion Surprise Toys (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Lacks WP:RS, needs independent sources to establish notability, a perfect page created by a new editor through Sandbox, all signs of WP:UPE. Meeanaya ( talk) 13:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep - nom is probably right about UPE, but since I'm not in a position to judge on that, I'm focusing just on notability. I've also removed 1/3 of the "sources" (marketing links) to help in nugget picking. To my shock, I think it might just make it - newsweek and the verge both have a sufficient amount on it to satisfy SigCov, and are both independent. Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep Just barely makes notability; the earworm songs and large amount of subscribers do clinch WP:N, but there's also a lot of marketing noise within the article. I did remove several more IMDb-sourced links. Nate • ( chatter) 02:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete there is no criteria on the Wikipedia to meet notability based on the amount of subscribers, if there is not significant coverage it fails the general notability. The news is nothing about the business but only about a video for which a page can be attempted but definitely not about the company without major coverage in the news. Salt it 157.37.227.176 ( talk) 06:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)— 157.37.227.176 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Keep Billion surprise toys is a popular kids brand like - ChuChutv. VfD has problems, but simply deleting it isn't the answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.210.40.197 ( talk) 19:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC) — 103.210.40.197 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Delete, to establish notability only brief or routine coverage is not enough, as WP:SIGCOV is not met and fails WP:CONTN. This newly establish company requries WP:NRVE and if the company was notable it would have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time. The example of ChuChu TV has very clearly WP:SUSTAINED and Billion Surprise Toys has failed here. It is used for WP:SPIP and it is too early to create a page for Billion Surprise Toys and really deletion is the correct decision at this time. A page can be created for it later once it has reliable news coverage from 5-6 sources and also it is a case of policy violation WP:UPE, it gives an another reason that the creator has failed to disclose paid contributions, so it should be definitely deleted. 157.37.183.89 ( talk) 04:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)— 157.37.183.89 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Delete - A search shows nothing to help the subject meet WP:GNG and really WP:DEPTH is not there. The coverage of company appears to be either primary or fringe. 39.36.134.11 ( talk) 07:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)— 39.36.134.11 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Keep Mentioned sufficient reference links to reliable resources. This article should sustain. §monopoly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.97.165.235 ( talk) 09:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC) — 27.97.165.235 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Weak keep. After Nosebagbear's cleanup I think that there might be enough media coverage to meet notability requirements. Greyjoy ^talk 11:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment- Coverage is not for the company but it for the song and really needs much indepth coverage to meet WP:GNG. If we start accepting these channels, there will be a flood of non-notable channels pages on the Wikipedia with one or two references. Clearly non-notable company, using wiki for advertising, hired paid editor, needs to be deleted on the basis of WP:UPE. USER:MER-C is one of the specialized in handling UPE. Meeanaya ( talk) 04:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep I agree with Greyjoy’s statement. This article has enough media coverage from popular websites.TimberWoods — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.15.138.146 ( talk) 18:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC) — 49.15.138.146 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Comment- After going through all sources, it doesn't seems that company has garnered news, most of the coverage is only because of controversial Johny Johny Yes Papa version of Gangnam style and really couldn't find anything significant for the company. The video has been a part of internet meme. Meeanaya ( talk) 04:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Question Are there a particular set of guidelines to apply to check the notability of a YouTube channel? WP:WEB doesn't seem right. WP:NCORP is definitely not correct. I know there's always WP:GNG to look at but more explicit guidelines would be helpful. HighKing ⁺⁺ 16:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• take a look at WP:NYOUTUBE - Epinoia ( talk) 02:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete: fails WP:NORG & WP:GNG. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. None of the Keep !voters have been able to provide a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Also, lots of !votes based on generic comments but no rebuttals to any of the Delete !votes or earnest debating has taken place. I too have been unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. If any Keep !voters wishes to post links to good references and debate their merit, I'm open to changing my mind. Until then, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ⁺⁺ 20:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I agree with User:HighKing, Nothing significant coming out from Weak keep voters and really they have not even replied after that, the page should be deleted with no WP:RS. Lets not waste more time on it. Meeanaya ( talk) 04:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep: The current references could be better. It sounds weird to me that we could consider the 25 Million subscribed youtube channel, a popular kids brand youtube.fandom with multiple language content production Multi-languages , also a music artist Amazon not notable. tuddic . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.223.190 ( talk) 07:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC) — 14.98.223.190 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Comment Judging from the number of anon IP editors appearing out of nowhere for both sides, clearly this topic is receiving attention off-wiki. But our guidelines are very clear and I'm still waiting for *any* references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. To date, none have been produced. HighKing ⁺⁺ 21:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Answer is on Goolge itself. People needs to know about the channel and wiki is the best place for this explanation. Goolgle search results explain's this better GoogleSearch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.210.40.197 ( talk) 05:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Take a look at WP:GHITS. If you can't provide links to references, don't expect others to support your !vote. HighKing ⁺⁺ 11:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - it doesn't look like there is any deep and significant coverage in reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG - many of the sources in the article look like WP:REFBOMBING - lots of mentions, but nothing substantial - notability not established - popular does not mean notable - Epinoia ( talk) 01:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 19:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Tom Cooper (author)

Tom Cooper (author) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Blatant self-promotional page written in an unencyclopedic format with no reliable sources. This was speedily deleted in December 2012 but the named author decided to unilaterally recreate it. 𝓛𝓲𝓰𝓱𝓽𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓼 ( talk) 01:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete – per Tokyogirl79 at the first Afd. Nothing changed since then. Mathglot ( talk) 06:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep as worldcat shows 1600 library holdings which is an indicator of notability suggesting his works should have been reviewed and the external links shows one reliable source review in the Canadian military journal, Atlantic306 ( talk) 17:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The results aren't all his; "Tom Cooper" isn't an uncommon name. Regardless of how many works he authored, we need reliable sources that talk about him, not ones merely written by him himself, as the Canadian military journal review is. 𝓛𝓲𝓰𝓱𝓽𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓼 ( talk) 23:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines. This kind of article is always a difficult one, since it seems there's a common sense argument for importance of the subject matter based on the large body of work he seems to have produced. Looking at this article I'm guessing he IS actually notable as an author. But the problem is that I'm guessing. I don't know. Wikipedia requires cited evidence of notability of an author, based on multiple secondary sources in which the author is the subject of that source. Until those sources are provided in this article, it is not eligible to remain in Wikipedia's main namespace. - Markeer 12:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per User:Markeer. If somebody thinks he's notable, they can come up with the sources to prove it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Space Shuttle missions. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Timeline of Space Shuttle missions

Timeline of Space Shuttle missions (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Covers same topic as List of Space Shuttle missions. I don't think it can be expanded into a useful timeline without duplicating the format/content of the list. Kees08 (Talk) 06:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 12:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Merge It's a useful alternate depiction of the same data. I'd suggest merging the timeline to List of Space Shuttle missions, possibly pre-collapsed. But an extra separate article seems surplus to requirements. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge to List of Space Shuttle missions. I can see this content serving as visual supplement; as a timeline with explanations already exists at the target, it is merely an alternative presentation. ComplexRational ( talk) 14:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge to List of Space Shuttle missions. As a separate article this is redundant. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 10:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment Suppose I should be clear and say I do not support a merge, and prefer a deletion. The graphic is poor, and I do not think it can easily be fixed. Kees08 (Talk) 16:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of Space Shuttle missions#Shuttle flights for now. In the future, the graphic may be useful though, but for now lets be safe per WP:CHEAP. AmericanAir88^{( talk)} 23:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Based on my reading of the discussion, it does not seem to be clear whether the topic meets the Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists guideline or the Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists inclusion criteria. These guidelines are fairly open-ended as noted by hike395's argument; unlike most other notability guidelines which either demand some standard of sourcing (e.g WP:GNG) or some standard trait of the topic (e.g WP:NPOL) these ones appear to be more a case-by-case decision making. And it does not seem like the delete case is overwhelmingly more compelling than the keep case, hence "no consensus". Also, a bit of a nitpick, but WP:NLIST is actually about biographies; WP:LISTN is about lists.

Beyond the notability point, it seems like much of the discussion is whether Wikipedia:Set index articles should be allowed when a disambiguation page already exists and the list topic is primarily about a name similarity. Again, it seems like there are compelling arguments on either side (the arbitrariness of the inclusion criterium on the delete camp; the potential usefulness in lieu of having articles on each item and the existence and AFDs closed as keep on the keep side) without one overwhelmingly more convincing.

Some people have suggested that this is a problem with the guidelines about lists rather than this specific list and have proposed a discussion on them. A merge discussion with the dab page might also be a good idea. But as far as the scope of an AFD discussion is concerned, this is a "no consensus". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

List of lakes named McArthur

List of lakes named McArthur (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no coherence, or reader interest, in articles about unrelated lakes that happen to have "McArthur" or "MacArthurs" in their names. Does not meet criteria for a standalone list, because there are no sources, there is no interest in the set of lakes named with a partial text string match, but all for completely different reasons, so randomly having extremely vague similarity. What is needed for readers, only, in Wikipedia, is a disambiguation page, which already exists, which is McArthur Lake (disambiguation). Note, this topic comes up because several of the past participating editors including myself are discussing criteria for articles about lakes at ongoing AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lac Terant. Doncram ( talk) 05:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note, in the past, in the process of developing some editor(s) understanding about how Wikipedia works, and editing and/or moving articles during ongoing AFDs which somewhat confounded reasonable discussion and so on, i think, there were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McArthur Lake, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McArthur Lake, Ontario, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McArthur Lake (2nd nomination). At this point, I hope (knock on wood) that some editors now understand more about how Wikipedia works. Basically, we don't want separate articles about obscure lakes having no information besides their location and little more available about them. If necessary, we can disambiguate between different, similarly named articles. There is no reasoning supporting having a standalone list-article duplicative to a disambiguation page and of no interest to any readers, not supported by any sources discussing the topic of the set of lakes which have similar names. Especially if all the members are named for completely different persons. This is NOT like a set-index article for ships named U.S.S. Constellation or whatever, where there is coherence and relatedness in the naming, in that the U.S. Navy re-employs a name for a new ship in honor of a past ship which has been retired or destroyed. These lakes are completely unrelated. -- Doncram ( talk) 05:53, 2 September 2019 (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/2019 September 2. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Vorbee ( talk) 06:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. The dab page is quite sufficient for Wikipedia's needs. Clarityfiend ( talk) 06:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - dab page is sufficient. Daß  Wölf 08:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - if all the lakes were named for the same person, then we could redirect or merge to that person's article; but there is no indication of this (lakes in America and Australia...), so the article is a rag-bag of unrelated materials linked only by the accident of a shared surname. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or gazetteer (although it might share some features with the latter per WP:FIVE). Hence we have Washington Street and not List of streets named Washington Street listing all 5,000+ of them with co-ordinates for each.---- Pontificalibus 08:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Pinging editors who expressed view in two prior previous debates @ DGG, Yngvadottir, Station1, Shhhnotsoloud, and Squeamish Ossifrage: any views on this? Aymatth2 ( talk) 13:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Wait a sec! Did you just selectively ping the editors who you guess will agree with you? What about User:Milowent, User:Spartaz, User:power~enwiki, User:Clarityfiend,

• Strong keep. This list is an example of what are known as Wikipedia:Set index articles, a list of lakes with the same or similar name, some of which have articles and some of which do not. Other examples are List of peaks named Signal, which describes a set of mountain peaks, and List of ships of the United States Navy named Enterprise, which describes a set of ships. It is a list rather than a disambiguation page. The difference is:
  • The disambiguation page McArthur Lake lists all pages with names like "McArthur Lake", including lakes and other types of thing, giving minimal information but linking to the pages. It does not include anything that does not have an article
  • The set index List of lakes named McArthur gives a list of similar things (lakes) with names like "McArthur Lake", giving information about each entry whether or not the entry qualifies for a full article on its own. It provides a way of giving information about minor lakes that do not qualify for full articles, but where readers may be trying to find out about the lake.

Since this is such a classic example of a set index, I advise User:Doncram to take up the broader issue of whether all such articles should be deleted at the guideline level, Wikipedia talk:Set index articles, rather try to pick off the set index articles one by one. Aymatth2 ( talk) 13:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

NO, I absolutely do not agree to fix everything else in the world before addressing this. We have here editors who have thought deeply about lakes and the need to draw connections between them or not. And at the ongoing AFD about Lac Terant I am hopeful about how there is some new understanding being created between lakes editors, including yourself.

It is a tangent to go off about all other list-articles. However the directions about set index articles are clear that the criteria for standalone lists must be met. There must be some coherence, some relationship between items, some coverage out there about the topic and/or some interest among readers about the topic. About lakes sharing a text-string in their naming, however, there exist no sources covering them as a set; there is no usefulness in linking from one article to another one.

Nonetheless, I do sympathize a bit to editors having confusion, because it is my understanding that the relatedness of things has been a battleground for more than a decade, if not for the entire life of Wikipedia. My understanding or not of the past history doesn't really matter, but honestly i understand that the concept of "set index articles" was invented to create a truce between incredibly persistent, bureaucratic editors bent on enforcing disambiguation page rules (which oddly disallow footnotes and annotation-type substantial information about items) vs. wp:SHIPS editors who wanted to maintain lists of ships named Constitution or whatever, which do in fact have some relatedness, and where there is clearly a need for a disambiguating function to be performed, which can in fact be performed by the "set index articles" then created. The SHIPS editors were allowed to include sensible annotations and other information in their "set index articles" and the disambiguation rules editors were willing to go away. What is written in guidance about set index articles doesn't report on this history, and is itself a battleground. I have myself tried to help rationalize this area, but there is only so much i can do. Sorry about that. :(

Somewhat helpful to you, perhaps, is wp:CLNT, an editing guideline about complementarity of categories, lists, and navigation templates, when covering sets of related things. One section of that guideline includes good commentary about stuff not being related enough:

"Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines:

1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles."

Please consider here about lakes, where IMHO we have completely unrelated things. It is not plausible that a reader interested in one lake in Saskatchewan named for a Canadian war veteran named Mcarthur, say, has any interest at all in finding their way to an article about a lake in Australia named for a completely different person with last name MacArthur who is known for being a birdwatcher or whatever. I think you would not want a "see also" link, or any other link, from one article to the other.

Again, I absolutely do not accept a requirement to fix everything else wrong in the world, before fixing this one thing that this AFD is about. I do note that you, did in the past put an extraordinary effort into creating articles about many of the lacs with McArthur in their names; you are uniquely informed and qualified to know that those articles have nothing at all to do with each other, except for the oddity of your own interest in writing about them, which IMHO was your reaction to being told in some of those AFDs that they were probably not notable. I heartily wish that you personally will choose to devote your future energy to addressing "more important" lakes rather than "less important" ones, and to establishing relationships that are "real" rather than "fake" (my wording may not be perfect). For example, I do thank and commend you for your constructive participation about Lac Terant, where you went on to create two related articles which really were needed and really are helpful (the one about the proposed national park and the one about the wildlife refuge area). Rather than, say, going off on conceivable tangents like how there might be a lake with a vaguely similar name in Tarrant County, Texas or whatever. You, me, everyone needs to think about how best to use our Wikipedia volunteer time, and we do better when we prioritize stuff more encyclopedic/important/interesting to readers over stuff less that way. Hope this helps, YMMV. -- Doncram ( talk) 13:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Points about battlegrounds proven by my editing at wp:CLNT just now, to remove a possible silly implication. I.e. if a navigation template is not needed/helpful, that does not mean a category or list is needed. Which you, Aymatth2, just reverted on "principle" presumably, I think because you perceive that battling in the guidance-type articles might serve your pre-determined(?) or oppositionally-motivated(?) goals here. I may be sorry to have pointed you to that guideline, which has been helpful to many in the past, oh well.

And, at McArthur Lake (Idaho), i removed some padding in the article about the reservoir which you Aymathy just reverted. IMHO you originally put excessive stuff into that article in order to "win" about keeping it, because, like I said, you were oppositionally motivated by being told that random lakes of that name were probably not notable. Okay, i will give up there, you can have your separate article overlapping excessively with the pre-existing article about the wildlife corridor of that name. Whatever, think about readers, or not, whatever. -- Doncram ( talk) 14:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete as redundant to the DAB McArthur Lake. I don't see any value in grouping these together beyond mere disambiguation, where it is based on nothing more than coincidence of name (not even shared eponym here). The two lists to which the sole keep !vote compares this have more basis for them than this purely superficial relationship, as name was driven by function in the former and shared as a tradition within a military organization in the latter. postdlf ( talk) 15:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Again, a disambiguation page is quite different from a set index list. See Wikipedia:Set index articles. Disambiguation pages lead the reader to articles with similar names, while set index lists give information about similar things with similar names, none of which need have articles. A set index list, like other types of list, is useful in providing information about things that do not warrant stand-alone articles, while a disambiguation page only leads to articles about things that do. They are completely different. Aymatth2 ( talk) 16:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

The point isn’t whether it’s a set index, the point is if that’s what it is it’s a bad set index, for reasons given above. postdlf ( talk) 16:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

A set index list gives information about of a set of items of a specific type (lakes in this case) that share the same (or similar) name. They need not have anything else in common. The reader is looking for information about a lake called "Macarthur", and this list tries to provide it, even if they are looking for a lake that has no article. Aymatth2 ( talk) 17:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The disambiguation page rightly lists only 7 lakes, because only 7 lakes have articles, and a disambiguation page is a guide to navigating articles. The article discussed for deletion contains information (albeit minimal) about 15 lakes. Removing useful, easy-to-find information from the encyclopedia in the name of "coherence" doesn't seem sensible to me. Furthermore, opinions about sufficiency or reader interest have no evidence. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 16:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep, perfectly valid set index (and actually a rather good one at that compared to many which for all practical purposes are disambiguation pages with a different template and without functionality of having links to the page listed in reports for remediation). older ≠ wiser 17:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  Huh? Oh, in fact I do get what User:Bkonrad ("Older ne wiser") means. It is a technical point that in Wikipedia there are mechanisms to identify and eradicate accidental links to disambiguation pages, when instead a link to one of its members is meant (see, for example, wp:Daily Disambig, the internal "newspaper" about it). While for links to set index articles, there are no comparable mechanisms. I actually tried to change that in the past. Bkonrad, you have been involved with the concept of set index articles for more than 10 years, I am pretty sure. Are you sure you want to stick with your position here that no standards at all are to be required? -- Doncram ( talk) 00:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  Doncram, what makes you think I advocate for "no standards at all are to be required". Quite the contrary, I find this to be a rather good example of a set index page, unlike many others which for all appearances are nothing more than disambiguation pages with a different template. This page strikes me as what set indexes should be -- detailing content for which there is no stand-alone article but which share a name. older ≠ wiser 01:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  I'm sorry, I thought you would have something to say about where you would draw the line between notable vs. not, about how wp:DIRECTORY applies or not. You comment in effect that the list "has information" and "is formatted nicely" (my wording), but you don't come to any judgement that differentiates this from a phone book. Or any subset of a phone book covering the people having the same name. IMHO we don't want to consider those as sets, at all, and we don't want to be told trivial information about the members. That's what atlases and phone books are for. Maybe you don't, as a practice, deal with notability at all, or provide substantial votes in AFDs? It's okay if you don't want to come to any larger judgment, but then I think your "Keep" !vote would better be retracted, and your comment should better be labelled as merely "Comment". -- Doncram ( talk) 02:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  As far as I'm concerned, this list is precisely what set indexes were meant to be. older ≠ wiser 03:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep, per reasons given by those wanting to keep this article, which seem good to me. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 17:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment (ec): Replying to the above three !voters, I am sorry, I don't know how to be entirely polite about this. It's like you have seen a bauble--a formatted list of places about which the locations are known--and you are enchanted. Will you set no limits at all? Wikipedia is not a gazetteer about lakes. We can't be...at the AFD on Lac Terant, it has been pointed out that there are more than 500,000 lakes in Quebec, comparable to the number of persons in the province. There are too many individual lakes in the world, too many streets that have locations and names, too many individual ships and boats, too many individual persons, for us to create articles about each one of them. We should not want to, it is would not be encyclopedic, it would show no judgment, we would be acting like morons or computer bots if we did. As Pontificalibus states above, "Wikipedia is not a directory or gazetteer (although it might share some features with the latter per WP:FIVE). Hence we have Washington Street and not List of streets named Washington Street listing all 5,000+ of them with co-ordinates for each." For the lakes and streets and churches and McDonald's and whatever else have locations (latitude and longitude), it can be determined and verified what are their approximate elevations, maybe their approximate sizes, and these statistics can be put into an article or table row. And many generalities can be mined about the average weather in the area, and the typical land usages in the area, and so on, so that a bot can write an article or a table row with some detail that might for a second look interesting or useful, if you were only looking at a few of them. But NO, we don't want separate articles. We also don't want separate table rows about each of these. List-articles have to meet some minimum criteria and have some minimum criteria for membership, beyond "shares name with something else". How many surnames exist, how many female first names exist, how many colors exist? Do you really want to have/allow/require, for every one of these, a list-article enumerating tens or hundreds or thousands of examples of lakes sharing that name? Of boats sharing that name Of persons? Few or none of which are individually notable. Is wp:Notability to be transformed to "shares a name with something else", or "shares a name with something having an article"? Every state has a registry of boats and ships, I think. Every person in the United States at least is named in one or more databases. Are we required to create a list-article for "boats named Petunia", and "persons named Janice" and allow a row in that list for every one of thousands of examples? "Ships named Elizabeth"? About lakes or other things having fixed locations and names discernible on any map, no, we do not want a separate article about each one of them, and we do not want to allow a set-index for every naming combination of them. "Streets named 32nd Street"? "Churches named First Presbyterian"? "Home Depots"? For every celebrity, have a list of persons sharing that name? Have a list of every set of Facebook persons who have the same name?

About this list-article, there are eight items not having articles, about which effectively nothing is known. I know, because i debated about it previously, that the only thing known about the "small lake in Goldsboro, North Carolina" is that it has a location shown in Mapcarta. We don't want a nicely-organized list-article covering it. About none of them is there any mention, AFAIK, in any other article; neither Goldsboro, North Carolina nor any other article, present or future, will ever mention that lake, unless someone is just going out of their way to disprove this point. For set index articles like this one, with items not covered in separate articles, there is not even a disambiguation-between-existing-articles function being served. Nor is there any plausible interest of readers to find their way from one local one to a different one far away, merely sharing the same name. We need to exercise judgment and cut those eight mentions out of Wikipedia, entirely. -- Doncram ( talk) 18:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep (ec). As others have said, this provides a place to gather what information we have about lakes that do not (so far as we know) merit an article, as well as distinguishing them from other lakes of the same name. Yngvadottir ( talk) 18:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply