Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 July	30 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otis Yeager Chandler and Elizabeth Khuri-Yakub[edit]

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

Non-notable married couple lacking independent in-depth, non-trivial support. Should be redirected to Goodreads, at minimum the article should be broken into two article, one for each individual in title. reddogsix (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This couple is notable because they formed an important internet company. "He founded the company with the bride," The New York Times said. People don't get a mention like that in The Times unless they are worthy of notice, and in this case they are seen as a couple. So my opinion is Retain as-is. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wedding announcements are NOT independent resources. They are usually provided by the family or friends of the participants. reddogsix (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a reasonable title for a redirect. The individual people may be notable, but none of the existing references demonstrate that. The couple is not notable as a couple for founding a website, and their marriage announcement certainly doesn't make that notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: my first thought was "split", but looking at the sources it seems like neither have enough coverage to warrant an article, and notability is not inherited from Goodreads. We have a small amount of coverage of Chandler here and I could give the benefit of the doubt and say this is reliable, but that's unfortunately not enough. I oppose redirecting the page, as this is not a plausible search phrase. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 14:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bilorv/WP:INHERITED. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 00:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a consensus that there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. ~ mazca ^talk 17:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Phone Call (1977 film)[edit]

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

A non-notable film that fails WP:NFP and WP:NFO. Source searches have provided no independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage; only found a couple of name checks. Furthermore, the primary sources in the article are not usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability, and I also wasn't able to identify any significant coverage. Mortee (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Videos of the movie may appear in search engines, but there is little to no notability about the movie itself. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 09:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFP and WP:NFO and there is no reliable sources I found on Google . Kpgj hpjm 16:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan's paradox[edit]

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

Google Scholar gets 4 hits, two written by D.P. Sheehan and the other two completely unrelated to this subject. In other news: the author of this article is a WP:SPA promoting the work of D.P. Sheehan. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 23:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No demonstration of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Comment amazingly this article has generated some Quora questions. Also, I couldn't find something related to "Duncan paradox" in Google Books. MaoGo (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, aside from the peak in Quora questions about it I cannot find anything else. It is not WP:NOTABLE as per JzG. --MaoGo (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be shocked - shocked! - to learnt hat at least one of those questions traces directly to D.P. Sheehan. The question, not the answer. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JzG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this is a notable scientific concept, even as a superficially-a-"paradox"-but-not-really idea. XOR'easter (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero evidence of notability. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even wrong. Bearian (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)r[reply]
Delete Absolutely non-notable . Kpgj hpjm 16:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ciudad de las Ideas (conference). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ideasta[edit]

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

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ciudad de las Ideas (conference). The parent article is a good place to define "ideasta." Newslinger (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with that. Rathfelder (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 23:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 20:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 20:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 20:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bunda C. Chibwe[edit]

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

A non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC, as per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being one of 12 members of the governing organization of a church of 250k members doesn't meet any automatic notability rules, and I don't see coverage to meet WP:GNG. I've only found trivial references such as [1]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actually, the governing organizations of the Community of Christ is its First Presidency. The Quorum of 12 is the next highest body. Unlike apostles in the LDS Church (which has over 15 million members), calls to this body do not generate news articles. Don't get me started on the wrongness of saying Chibwe speaks "English, French and seven African languages" instead of just naming those seven languages.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this pure-of-heart, apostolic text that carries forth without encyclopaedic sins. -The Gnome (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, with thanks to Johnpacklambert for being able to self-reflect on the article. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yanagida Toshiko[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC, as per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Name is written 柳田聡子, for those searching Japanese-language sources. Bakazaka (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the translation; I have added the find sources template atop with it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I created this article 8 years ago I think I was a little too enthusiastic about being able to show people as notable. The only clear sourcing on her is author/background information connected with a BYU studies quarterly article that was a translation of her memoirs. This is just not the level of reliable source coverage to justify having an article, as much as I wish it was otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lambert; no claims of importance or significance, and the references don't demonstrate GNG being met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Per the detailed analysis of the sources by Jmcgnh Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OF NOTE magazine[edit]

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

This is a relatively minor magazine. The references are mainly to the things that it writes about, and therefore do not show `notability. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've gone through and updated the references, cleaned up the language so that it doesn't sound promotional and removed duplicate text that was mirroring the language from the website. This article is helpful for the Guyanese diaspora and those interested in the work of Ali. Of Note and Ms. Ali are well know in the Caribbean community. ScottinGeorgia (talk • contribs) 1:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep. this review of OF NOTE is useful. The Economist article doesn't seem to be useful. This item from a "reported blog" (hence, I think, a reliable source) at least talks about an issue of the magazine. This is about a radio show's discussion of the content in a particular issue of OF NOTE. An article from Images and Voices of Hope discusses another issue of OF NOTE, although the article is by an editor at OF NOTE. I think the references that explicitly talk about OF NOTE add up to enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The first reference does not mention OF NOTE at all. I have not read all of the rest of them, but the ones that seemed most likely turn out to be just brief mentions of OF NOTE on the way to talking about the subject of interest that OF NOTE may also have written about. It's hard to make out the notability of the website itself amongst the notable subjects that it takes on and therefore gets mentioned for. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: I didn't feel quite right about my stance, but I've now done the analysis of references to show why I don't think we have suitable notability references and posted that to the talk page. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Insufficient significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. I've reviewed Jmcgnh's analysis of the article's sources at Talk:OF NOTE magazine and I agree with his assessment. — Newslinger talk 03:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 21:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I do not find that Tyw7's argument about "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist" has been countered effectively. At the same time, it is clear that no consensus to delete exists. I encourage editors to follow up on power~enwiki's suggestion to start an RFC at an appropriate venue. Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vestre Hestlægerhøy[edit]

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

Also nominating:

Vetldalseggi
Visbretinden
Vulueggi
Vesltverråtinden
And probably all the mountains listed at Category:Mountains_of_Oppland since they all have similiar content similiar content with dubious referencing ^{Added reason of entry and making it clear that I don't want it all deleted;edited 16:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)} Striking through later additions that were added while AfD was ongoing, opinions were already provided, and then kept changing throughout. Please make one nomination, then if you are adding text write underneath with new signatures, so a closing person and all respondents can more easily understand what is/was going on. gidonb (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails Geography for named land feature. A Google search brought up nothing of the mountain and all the foreign language articles are similar stubs with few or no references. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment: WP:GEOLAND guideline 4 states

“

Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.

”

Can you find anything of the mountain beyond just stats and coordinates? This article goes against the very exception mentioned in that guideline. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Starzynka article with almost no content and no references. Category:Mountains_of_Oppland is where all these stubs are listed. -- » Shadowowl | talk 12:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. The corresponding Norwegian articles all have references, and additional references probably exist. It's frustrating to see these nominations after the 100+ yesterday. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably? Can you prove that probably or is this one of those unicorns that may or may not exist?

I had a rough look at random articles in the category and most of the foreign language articles are also no-reference stubs.

The articles I named definitely don't have references in the foreign language, last I checked. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The articles generally have references to Peakbook and Statens kartverk, known in English as Norwegian Mapping and Cadastre Authority. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, the Norwegian article for the mountain in the AfD title has had 3 references since 2016. Mortee (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Norwegian Mapping and Cadastre Authority doesn't seem like a convincing reference. It proves WP:ITEXISTS --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 23:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've not made any vote yet. Just clarifying that they (at least some) do have references in other languages Mortee (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the Netherlands and Norsk Nynorsky version. But still I don't think the reference listed could be used to prove notability. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 23:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consensus has always been that all named geographic features are notable -- and the available refs are sufficient for the purpose. It's absurd to make nominations in an area without being aware of the usual practice there. DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well the guideline says "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." And I can't find any info beyond just statics. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had a look at the Norweigian page for the mountains that I had listed and all the references show is WP:ITEXIST. Some of them are just a link to a map of the area. For example, http://www.norgeskart.no/#!/?zoom=11&lon=119262.00&lat=6904518.00&project=seeiendom&layers=1002,1015 for Vetldalseggi --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Eastmain and DGG, and the sources identified by Mortee. Mountains like these ones generally are notable. James500 (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Reiterate DGG's comment: It's absurd to make nominations in an area without being aware of the usual practice there. Add it is further not useful to make nominations for a country where you have no knowledge of the languages, on basic topics which can be expected to be seen to be very obviously notable if you did have the language skill. Pinging User:Tyw7 because they suggest above that pinging them is necessary for them to see comments in this AFD which they opened. --Doncram (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I nominated this in good faith as I think it fails WP:GEOLAND particularly the part that there needs to be more source than just stats. So far, none of the mountains listed had anything beyond just raw statics like it's height, location, etc. The foreign language version also lacks sufficient reference. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Named existence alone, conflicts with WP:NOTEVERYTHING -- DexterPointy (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Named mountains are not everything that exists. Things other than named mountains do exist, and we are not trying to include all of those other things. The purpose of that policy is to prevent you from listing every blade of grass in your garden or every grain of sand on the beach. It does not exist to prevent articles on huge mountains that are important landmarks. James500 (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Then why does the guideline said: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. Emphasis added. So the mountain needs to be named and have third-party sources with stuff beyond just stats and coordinates. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Per WP:GEOLAND criterium 4: Named natural features. gidonb (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And did you see the exception? "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river."

Can you find anything of the mountain beyond just stats and coordinates? This article goes against the very exception mentioned in that guideline. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's right there in the sources. In the meantime I have fixed the coordinates and cleaned up the template clutter. Will add some more information later. To your first question and since you raise it yourself: it's difficult to miss your WP:bludgeoning on this page. In general, I view the combination of the indiscriminate nomination of 330 articles for deletion, the excessive templates, and the bludgeoning with excessive bold (that isn't in the source) as disruptive behavior. You say it bold, you say it time and time again, but that doesn't make it right. gidonb (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong but https://peakbook.org/en/peakbook-element/1863/en/Vestre+Hestl%C3%A6gerh%C3%B8e.html list just numbers about the mountain.
So as this https://stadnamn.kartverket.no/fakta/920927.
And http://www.norgeskart.no/#!/?zoom=4&lon=396722.00&lat=7197864.00&project=seeiendom&layers=1002,1015 is just a map.
Also, nobody seem to be countering my point about the named feature exception. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most people here have countered your claims. After all the bludgeoning, "just numbers about the mountain" is how you frame essential information when you clearly have the losing hand. The sources provide information beyond "just numbers" (in our guideline "statistics") and it was there all along. It further proves why this nomination, a mass nomination of 330 Wikipedia articles, should never have happened. gidonb (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oh really. Let's take Vestre Hestlægerhøy as an example.
https://peakbook.org/en/peakbook-element/1863/en/Vestre+Hestl%C3%A6gerh%C3%B8e.html says

“

Name Vestre Hestlægerhøe

Search name Hestlægerhøe Vestre Elevation 1,758 meter Region Lom, Vågå, From Besshøe to Nautgardstindane Parent regions Europe, Norway, Norway mainland, Jotunheimen, Oppland Vertical separation 53 meter Adviser admin (Administrator) Last modification 09.03.2016

”

Look like just stats to me.

https://stadnamn.kartverket.no/fakta/920927 says

location number 920927 Municipal Lom (0514), Oppland decisions Greyhound Norwegian Mapping Authority coordinates 61.593061 8.657556 Name type Mountain Name Type Group story Name type main group Terrain

Along with a bunch of spelling

https://peakbook.org/tour/171500/Over+paller+og+H%C3%B8er.html is also just a bunch of numbers

Start point Bom Glitterheimvegen (1,299m) Endpoint Bom Glitterheimvegen (1,299m) Characteristic Hike Duration 9h 48min Distance 38.0km Vertical meters 1,895m

http://norgeskart.no/#!/?zoom=4&lon=396722.00&lat=7197864.00&project=seeiendom&layers=1002,1015 is just a map.

And nobody has countered that specific point. If you look at the above most just say yes it meets criteria 4 since it's a named feature. And my answer is yes it's a name feature but the references are just stats.

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few statistics here. You totally undermine your own claim. The guideline provides a possible exception to the rule in the form of river islands. A non-fortified and uninhabited river island can exemplify land forms that are more dynamic or less stable over time. A river island can even be flooded part of the year. A mountain does not quite fit this model. People will write about it, as proven in the sources. Governments and private enterprises provide information other than statistics, as you quote yourself above. gidonb (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref. "It's right there in the sources." : Exactly which (links please) sources goes to more than mere existence & trivia? -- DexterPointy (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I saw no trivia in any of the sources. I'm specifying the sourcing straight in the article that I have improved. This will provide more lasting value to Wikipedia users. If there is any trivia then obviously it should not go into our article. Unless only maybe under a title that warns that upcoming sentences are marginal, such as "cultural references". gidonb (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What can be read straight of a map, only qualifies as trivia: longitude, latitude, elevation above sea level, location name, region name, etc.
According to this diff, you've only added one source, which is an external reference to this photo gallery.
Per WP:GEOLAND: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc."
Considering that I can provide exact same trivial facts about my pile of underwear (longitude, latitude, elevation above sea level, location name, region name, etc.; and take pictures, making a photo gallery, too), then: Are you sure about your keep?
-- DexterPointy (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does your self-selected difference define how many sources I have added to the article? Also, if you look at my answer to User:Tyw7 you would see that I claim that before adding and improving references this article was sourced to the degree that it should never have been AfDd. Furthermore, as part of a WP:BEFORE nominators and respondents need to carefully check what is in the sources and what other sources are out there. No sources needed to be added to the article to keep it per WP:NEXIST. What I've done is on and beyond. gidonb (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per WP:GEOLAND and well established precedent in WP:MAPOUTCOMES. Had a fraction of the time that so enthusiastically goes into bludgeoning this AFD been allocated to due dilligence, one would have noticed that Hestlægerhøy is a misspelling and Hestlægerhøe is correct. The nonchalant inclusion of "all the mountains listed at Category:Mountains_of_Oppland" is out of process. Sam Sailor 15:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam Sailor:Would you like 330 separate AFD's instead? » Shadowowl | talk 17:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that's a rhetorical question; but if you start 330 AfDs on these mountains I will request at ANI that you be topic-banned from deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being a stub is not an argument for deletion. Wikipedia also functions as a gazetteer per WP:5P1, meeting WP:GNG is not necessary as long as the content is verifiable. If some of these really do have no additional information, a redirect to Mountains of Oppland (currently a redlink) or a more-specific area they are in would be appropriate. There's no way to do that analysis for 300+ mountains at AfD; I'd recommend an RFC on a WikiProject page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Barlow Forbes[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to a couple of minor name checks. After searches, I was unable to find a preview the single book source used in the article. Despite this, multiple independent reliable sources are needed to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have doubts as to weather his grandson who wrote a bio of him is notable. He clearly is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of importance or significance, and the biography by his grandson is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm confused by these claims of insignificance. They sound more like claims of needing more evidence misspoken as claims of insignificance. Thmazing (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thmazing: If you're not familiar with it, please take a look at the notability requirements for subjects on English Wikipedia, which is located at WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill, local writer. There is unlikely to be any good sources from this writer who active 100 years ago, who wrote in-LDS materials that gained no reviews and has had no effect outside of his local community. I don't get it. FWIW, my single client is the estate of a Mormon who was my mentor, so don't @ me. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable by all WP rules on notabilty. Forces was a teacher his entire life. Lots of people are/were. The article only cites a single source of written material by an obviously biased source, his grandson. Not to mention, the 180 pg book amazon.com/Polygamy-Was-Better-Than-Monotony, published by Ballantine, is not cited properly in the article. The single mention of a "Forbes Day" appears to be a single-event, again non-notable by WP standards. TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 02:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There were educators in early Utah who had clear impacts, such as Karl G. Maeser. Forbes does not appear to have been a notable educator by the standard of someone such as Maeser, despite what the article ties to say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Epicatalysis[edit]

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

There don't appear to be any articles discussing this term that are independent of Sheehan, who coined it (and, judging from behavioural evidence, likely wrote this article). Guy (Help!) 22:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to have been discussed in any substantial depth by anyone other than its originator. XOR'easter (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The word does exist and get hits when searched but some seem to be talking about other things entirely. The only Google News hit is something about RNA, which is clearly something very different. The Google Books hits are a little better: This is on topic and not written by Sheehan. It also throws up quite a lot of other books that are plausibly on topic but none of the first few find anything if you search inside the book for "Epicatalysis". Google Scholar shows a few people citing Sheehan and talking about his idea of Epicatalysis. There is this, written by people from ThermaWatts LLC (a company seeking to develop a product related to this idea) and published by MDPI (which has an interesting article). They say in their conclusion "Epicatalysis created a harvestable temperature difference. That, alone, is enough to prove we must move past laws". I am not sure if the laws they are so casually "moving past" are those of Thermodynamics but it doesn't sound good. Anyway, the total is only 15 hits in Google Scholar. That is not impressive. Even worse, one of those 15 looks like a hit in nature.com (encouraging) but is actually just somebody talking about Wikipedia's coverage in the comments (rather less encouraging). I get the distinct impression that this is fringe stuff. If it isn't then we will be hearing a lot more about it. I'm not holding my breath. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

42 Technologies[edit]

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

Declined PROD. PROD reason was: "An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine funding notices and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Jason389 with no other contributions outside this topic. Does not meet WP:NCORP." Decliner made no edits addressing problems in article. Quick WP:BEFORE shows only press releases and churnalism. I endorse K.e.coffman's PROD. David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. Despite the article in financial post, I see no specific reason why this company is notable enough. Roxiehart1903 (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: confirming my PROD. No notability here; promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The 42technology.com described in the article as launching FuseOhm for electricity monitoring in the UK does not appear to be the same as the 42technologies.com US fashion industry BI company who were the original topic on the article. AllyD (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches find coverage of the start-up proposition, placing as a finalist for a start-up award in their field [2], and the company founders appearing on a Retail and Ecommerce 30 Under 30 list [3], but I don't see these as sufficient for the WP:NCORP criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Vinante[edit]

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

Per previous nomination, closed as a soft delete, this biography of a political worker and restaurant singer still lacks enough detailed sources to establish notability. The statement that Vinante is campaign director for the Foreign and Commonwealth Council isn't quite matched by the source, which describes him as its social media campaign director. Lord Belbury (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lord, thank you so much for your attentive and meticulous work. Sorry, I'm not very experienced, I really appreciate your indications. By cheking on line in you tube I noticed that Chris Vinante has also regularly sang in some of the best Hotels and venues in London: Millennium Hotels, Caffe Royal Hotel, Kensinghton Town Hall, and Westfield Shopping centers: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=christian+vinante+giovannini Also noticed that he has produced a song with a popular pianist. You can see also Phoenix Chinese TV interview on Italian politics. looks like some students of the University of Arts London did a breve documentary on political and Singing career with Chris singing for Brexit Secretary of state Dominic Raab and Zac Godsmith backing. There are not anyway official links with the University. There Are many Italian New wrote articles: - http://www.aise.it/anno/traguardo-storico-relazioni-tra-governo-uk-e-i-conservatori-italiani-a-londra--di-marcio-fasano/111306/1 - http://www.aise.it/archivio/Italian%20Conservatives/2016/all/all - http://www.giornaletrentino.it/?q=chris+vinante&view=trentino&view=Trentino - http://www.ladige.it/cerca?search_api_views_fulltext=chris+vinante - http://www.ladige.it/cerca?search_api_views_fulltext=chris+vinante should I add Italian Articles to the references? I'll add the missing "Social Media Campaign" as you mentioned. Thank you so much for you help.

Delete the level of sourcing, often things like newsletters for local publicity associations, does not add up to passing the level of sourcing we expect for articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no human career in which people get an automatic notability freebie just for existing, without having to achieve something noteworthy and receive reliable source coverage about them for it. But nothing here is a strong or encyclopedic notability claim, and the sourcing — which is far, far too dependent on primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, with virtually no evidence of any substantive coverage about him — is not even close to getting him over WP:GNG. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially promotional. Deb (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Warhammer 40,000. Per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. The argument not to merge, in that you can't merge poorly- or un-sourced material, is compelling. I'm not going to protect this. If that's abused, we can revisit protection later. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium of Man (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

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

Article has been repeatedly blanked in whole or in part, and then reverted. Rather than continuing the cycle I think it more proper to discuss here if it merits deletion. The rational for teh deletion would be that the article is poorly sourced fancruft and cannot be salvaged. Artw (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails WP:GNG. The subject is an element of a larger game. I had repeatedly removed un-sourced fancruft, only to be reverted by those fans. I started discussions on the talk page, to no avail. I then merged sourced parts of this content to the main article and Artw started this discussion in response. Having attempting alternatives to deletion, the only choice now is delete and salt. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd contest that any meaningful attempt at merger took place, FWIW. Also the request for salting is ridiculous hyperbole. Artw (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the cited content, which wasn't much. As the subject isn't notable and multiple editors have tried to retain it, salting is entirely appropriate as re-creation after deletion will most certainly occur. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

very very weak keep (bordering on delete) I have to say that this is not the only pointless page about 40K (we have pages on many of the formations, so it would seem odd not to have on e on the overall governing body). But other stuff is not really a reason to keep.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not Wikia, this information is largely fancruft and either primary sourced or original research. This information should only receive a mention in Warhammer 40,000, not its own article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sources can be found, otherwise merge / redirect. If the content has been merged, a fully indefinitely protected redirect should be sufficient to keep the article from being recreated. BOZ (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I haven't managed to find reliable sources which significantly cover the topic, although if someone can find a few of these, I have no problem with keeping. However, I strongly oppose deletion. It seems clear that this would be a likely search term and redirects are cheap. Also, we have an article about the video game and this feature seems to be a huge part of both the article and the game, so to me it makes the most sense to redirect it.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am very familiar with Warhammer 40k and will say that the Imperium is very important to the game's story and many playable armies are either directly tied to them or have broken off from them. That said I am only providing this information and I am unsure if it should have it's own page, be merged to a page where they have the history of the 40k universe, or straight up deleted. GameInfirmary Talk 02:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : This very long and practically entirely unsourced text is probably the work of love of fans of the game. Nonetheless, the subject lacks independent notability, while the relative dearth of sources makes it impossible to merge into "Warhammer 40,000," since Wikipedia has no use for unsupported text, here or anywhere else. If we leave out the unsourced text (for which, I for one could not locate sources) we are left with a stub. -The Gnome (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On sources : At first glance, the text seems adequately sourced but it's not. The Troke et al publication is an expanded rule book for the game itself and not related to the subject (moreover, it's as primary a source as they come); the Escapist review mentions the subject twice in the course of describing the game; The Mary Sue article is about the game's alleged fascism, mentioning the subject a couple of times as an example of supposedly a fascist setting; the Critical Hit piece describes itself as "A Beginner’s Guide to Warhammer 40K"; and so on. The only text that resembles a bona fide source is the Sequart article which talks about the alleged "Nietzschean" aspects of the Imperium. -The Gnome (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow keep. There is no reasonable prospect that this nomination will result in deletion. bd2412 T 02:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of breakfast cereals[edit]

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

Another indiscriminate list. Also serves as a directory. I think this list is also as indescrimate as the other two breakfast articles that is up for deletion ie Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast foods . Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1: Article never said notable when I nominated it (diff). It was only added AFTER (diff) --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of breakfast related item deletions:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to @FeydHuxtable, Andrew Davidson, Northamerica1000, Rhododendrites, Ritchie333, Hijiri88, Spshu, SilkTork, Newslinger, AmericanAir88, Roxy the dog, Ajf773, JohnBlackburne, Dorsetonian, Shadowowl, The Gnome, Lyndaship, Bearian, Reywas92, Alpha3031, Power~enwiki, El cid, el campeador, XOR'easter, and DexterPointy: --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Breakfast cereals and its subcategories, "overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative". It's also a functional navigational aid as per WP:LISTPURP, as evidenced in part by the 82,471 page views it has received in the last ninety days. Conversely, the main category page has only received 976 page views in the last ninety days. Deletion of the article would not serve Wikipedia's readers in any positive manner, and would only make information more difficult for readers to find. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well then link to the category. I don't see why we need a list for it. Also, I think this is also as indescrimate as the other two breakfast articles that is up for deletion ie Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast foods . --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above !vote. This is an example of how a list article can provide information above and beyond the corresponding category. There is a pretty clear criterion for whether any given entry qualifies, so the list is not indiscriminate. Nor does the "directory" charge really amount to a reason for deletion (for example, this page doesn't provide pricing information). XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as there are inclusion criteria to restrict the list to notable cereals, this is neither indiscriminate nor is it a directory. This is a perfectly good list article. --Michig (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It never said notable when I nominated it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_breakfast_cereals&oldid=852548399 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely irrelevant. You're just wasting everyone's time. postdlf (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, breakfast cereals are indisputably a thing, we have articles on many, and this list therefore easily passes WP:LISTPURP and WP:NOTDUP. This nominator's clearly on auto-pilot, and has demonstrated here and elsewhere at AFD recently that they do not understand applicable guidelines and policies, nor the specific content at hand. postdlf (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I nominated it it just say list of cereal (nomination version). Therefore it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. It means the article can be fixed through normal editing. Pburka (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unlike the more nebulous definitions of breakfast foods and drinks, cereals are well-defined and advertised/marketed (and therefore easily sourceable) as such, so not indiscriminate. I don't know if we really need all the articleless flavor variations, however. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This is a list of a type of breakfast food. This food is for breakfast and gives readers a world view of cereals available. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although the article should keep to its inclusion criteria of notable breakfast cereals, pruning the list accordingly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Clarityfiend; these en-masse nominations (and pings) are beginning to be disruptive and I urge Tyw7 to stop making them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The pings were copied from the other two articles. I thought it was a good way of informing participants of this related AFD. And en masse? I only nominated two articles today. And one over a few week ago (the breakfast drink one). Anyway if the pings annoys anyone, I'm sorry. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 00:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep—Inclusion criteria are much better defined than the other nominations. There is no reason to delete it.— Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 13:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is wasting people's time. User:Tyw7, please wait until the results of existing breakfast related AFDs before nominating any more. SilkTork (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep clearly notable. Lepricavark (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Index of breakfast-related articles[edit]

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

I don't see a use of this index. It seems to fails WP:NOTDIR as its only purpose is to be a directory of breakfast articles. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commment 1: It is an index of loosely related breakfast pages. So it fails WP:NOTDIR, which states "however, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed" particularly Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2: It seems to just list breakfast related articles. There are a couple of articles not listed and I'm sure there's tons of breakfast-related articles on Wikipedia. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of breakfast related item deletions:

Courtesy ping to @FeydHuxtable, Andrew Davidson, Northamerica1000, Rhododendrites, Ritchie333, Hijiri88, Spshu, SilkTork, Newslinger, AmericanAir88, Roxy the dog, Ajf773, JohnBlackburne, Dorsetonian, Shadowowl, The Gnome, Lyndaship, Bearian, Reywas92, Alpha3031, Power~enwiki, El cid, el campeador, XOR'easter, and DexterPointy: --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As WP:NOTDIR says, "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." This is a legitimate example of one such. XOR'easter (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Functioning as a directory of Wikipedia content is exactly the use of any index, which NOTDIR explicitly supports ("...Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content."). So I don't see a way in which this "seems" to fail it. When clear language says exactly the opposite of what a nominator claims, I always have to wonder...whence their error? Not to mention when a nomination seems to contradict numerous guidelines and well-established practices (see, e.g., WP:LISTPURP, WP:CLN, WP:INDEXES), but does not even comment on that contradiction. postdlf (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is an index of loosely related breakfast pages. So it fails "However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed" particularly Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Parroted phrases don't transform ipse dixits into arguments. postdlf (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It is a discriminate index that does not qualify for deletion per WP:NOTDIR. I agree with XOR'easter's assessment above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems to just list breakfast related articles. There are a couple of articles not listed and I'm sure there's tons of breakfast-related articles on Wikipedia. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above comments. a perfectly good navigational index. --Michig (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. BTW, lack of completeness is not a reason for deletion, otherwise we'd have many, many, many more lists to consider. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to say is that the article seem want to be a list of all breakfast articles on Wikipedia. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above. This is a good tool for navigation. Also, a lack of completeness is not a reason to delete and we can use this to clean up the article. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The point of WP:NOTDIR is that we shouldn't emulate the style of commercial directories, yellow pages, or sales catalogues. But that's not a general prohibition of indexes and lists. Per WP:CLN, these are valid and useful here. Andrew D. (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Haven't made up my mind about the breakfast foods page, but this seems like a fine navigational aid. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple problems

The scoping (i.e. "breakfast-related articles" in lead) is so loose that anything goes. It not only allows for anything eatable or drinkable (beer soup is already there), but really nearly everything (Cutlery, Microwave ovens, Slippers, ... ).
Regarding "Wikipedia working as its own directory": Given the flat mesh structure WP is (it doesn't even qualify as a undirected graph), then the order of the present day is actually to simply search for whatever is being wanted.
The idea that Wikipedia some day will even remotely succeed in providing some reasonable taxonomy & ontology of itself, is ... well, in an alternative universe.
Editors may certainly benefit from keeping their own "private" lists or directories (designed & scoped in anyway they see fit), but as far a readers (i.e. the real audience of WP) goes, then the interlinking of articles in the articles (incl. "see also"-sections) is what really may matter.
Saying: Things with potential negative value to readers, should not be kept article space for the sake of editors, when editors do have other options.

-- DexterPointy (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an Index of breakfast related articles. It's self-defining, and its what we do on Wikipedia to help readers navigate and discover more. See Wikipedia:Indexes for more information. This campaign against breakfast related lists lacks credibility and is starting to feel pointy and disruptive. SilkTork (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a vendetta against breakfast lists. I only nominated them because they all had such a wide scope. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see a WP:NOTDIR violation, because "directory" in this policy refers to directory services. Wikipedia has a listing of directories at Wikipedia:Directories and indexes, which links to Portal:Contents. In Portal:Contents/Culture and the arts, you can see links to similarly implemented pages such as Outline of chocolate and Outline of wine. — Newslinger talk 17:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Added Index of breakfast-related articles to Outline of meals. — Newslinger talk 17:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A perfectly fine list-based article supported by WP:LISTN and WP supports list based articles as navagational aids per WP:CLN. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no good reason to delete this list. Lepricavark (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sophia University. Merge what you like, but it's a sparse mention so I don't imagine that'll be much ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Global Concern[edit]

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

Non-notable institute that is part of the Sophia University. No independent notability. The Banner talk 18:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sophia University, where it is listed with other research institutes. Search of Japanese sources shows routine coverage of subject-related events and announcements, often in religious press outlets. Subject lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, and does not inherit notability from parent university, so fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Bakazaka (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sophia University per nom. It can be developed as a section there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sophia University. Enough trivial mentions and coupled with the education-level imparted, a redirect is merited.∯WBG^converse 09:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as the subject's independent-notability claims are unfounded. -The Gnome (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article could clearly use some work, but consensus here is that there are enough sources to keep this. Should probably be added... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aid to the Church in Need[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG Theroadislong (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Additional references probably exist, in light of the claims that it operates in many countries and the celebrity endorsement by Benedict. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing much in the way of sourcing, not enough to establish notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 09:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as google news shows rs coverage, will give examples later, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this seems to be a fairly substantial Catholic charity. Vorbee (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sorry for the delay, these are the sources found, the book ones are the better ones: Zenit, book, book, book, aleteia,Times of Malta Express, Derry Journal, news.mb.com, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Sources mentioned are reliable. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Friis Hintze[edit]

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

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. From source searches, available secondary sources consist of passing mentions, and the article is reliant upon primary sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete contrary to the nominator, all the sources are actually secondary sources. They are sources created by scholars reflecting on the life and work of Hintze, with the exception of the World Cat entry. However generally the bios we have here do not add to the level of sourcing to show notability. A bio like we have of Hintze will be created for the subject of any primary source collection held by a university, but having such a collection does not per se make the subject notable. The entry on the LDS Church in Greece actually focuses on others more than Hintze, and it does not actually go so far as to say Hintze was the first to preach in Greece. It also seems to indicate only that he shared the gospel in a private setting with two individuals, so the use of the term "preach" may or may not be merited. In the context of what Hintze actually did in Greece, his role there was not enough to make him notable. This is very different than say Joseph William Billy Johnson in Ghana, who built up the Church in various ways over 50 years, or Rendell N. Mabey in Nigeria, who was along with his wife, and another couple, among the first to officially preach the gosple, although Anthony Obinna had been doing it for years. Building on both the work of Obinna and others like him, and the receptivity of others they met, especially in Enugu, during their year in Nigeria they baptized over 1700. Still, I didnt create an article on Mabey until I realized he had served in the Utah State House of Representatives and the Utah State Senate. If his work and later published writings on his work in Nigeria was not enough to make him clearly notable, Hintze "preaching" without a single baptism in Greece makes no impact. To put things in perspective there were more Latter-day Saints in Nigeria when Mabey left, than there have been in Greece in total over the last 150 years, at least if we only include those who took up residency in Greece.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject person being "the first missionary to preach in Greece" for the Mormons one would expect an abundance of sources about him, yet abundant the sources are certainly not. As a matter of fact, the page itself of the official Mormon branch of Greece dedicated to the history of the LDS in the country does not once refer to Hintze. We have no sources for notability. -The Gnome (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Air Queensland. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland Pacific Airways[edit]

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

Stub article that does not cite any sources. Airline only existed for one year. There appears to be no notability what so ever. Funplussmart (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a stub is not a good reason for merging an article. The ariline was notable while it operated, which means that it is notable today. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - in reality it is already merged into Air Queensland. --Baerentp (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information is already included into the Air Queensland article, we don't unnecessarily duplicate information. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Air Queensland - an airline is not intrinsically notable, and operating some DC-3s in Australia at a time when several dozen DC-3s were still in service in the country does not confer notability. A brief blip in history. YSSYguy (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Air Queensland. Queensland Pacific Airways is as notable as any defunct airline, and there are plenty of them on Wikipedia, but unless this stub has a realistic chance of being substantially expanded, then it's better to consolidate the information on the subject by merging. Air Queensland itself is a stub; merging could help it getting higher on the quality scale. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Air Queensland. It deserves at least a mention but not its own article. AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Air Queensland, which presently only has a passing mention; WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Several sources date back to 1970s - 1990s in Google Books. I support merge into Air Queensland. Rzvas (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mystery Case Files. And selective merge Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Case Files: Key to Ravenhearst[edit]

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

Other than press releases, blogs, and trivial mentions, no in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystery Case Files: Key to Ravenhearst#Key to Ravenhearst, redirect. --Izno (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mystery Case Files. The series has a bit of notability but the individual games absolutely do not. They are likely search terms, so merging works. --Masem (t) 17:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The series in totally Notable and the first 9 games are notables, but the others mabye not. It’s because the Casual Playing is not notable in Wikipedia Term and it will never be notable for Wikipedia.Frapril (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All the games are notable in Casual Playing Sphere, but Wikipedia have prejudice on this, so for everyone that work for Wikipedia the series and its games are not notables.72.10.135.251 (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as per before, most of the individual titles are non-notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging sucks, and would create an article called List of Mystery Case Files games. Most of the Game are notables, but for Wikipedia no. Because it’s Casual Playing (Gaming it’s not a real word) it'S not notable for wikipedia and all site that speak of it are automatically unreliables. So delete and creating a new article about all games is better. Same thing with Ravenhearst Unlocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frapril (talk • contribs) 14:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand Wikipedia's policies on notability. Either the game passes notability criteria, or it doesn't. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we understand. 205.236.230.30 (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete- Like this series is notable. If for Wikipedia is not, create a new article of Game list.72.10.135.251 (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking off duplicate suggestion per WP:DISCUSSAFD. -The Gnome (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that this series is not Notable, why not put all the related articles in the discussion?Frapril (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because that was tried already and became too complicated to gain consensus. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mystery Case Files. -The Gnome (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Mystery Case Files. No need to do a full merge; bring over material similar in scope to the games that are already there, per WP:UNDUE. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn Fenix down (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AS Marck[edit]

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

~~Non-notable amateur football club without sources. Nominated per WP:NCLUB. French wiki article also is unsourced.~~ Withdrawn » Shadowowl | talk 16:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:FOOTYN: "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria." The bold format for "All" is part of the source. AS Marck is a frequent contender in the Coupe de France. gidonb (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:FOOTYN .They have played in the Coupe de France.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:FOOTYN - played in the Coupe de France. SportingFlyer talk 05:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an amateur football club which has reached the 1/32-finals, 7th and 8th rounds (where fully pro clubs have entered the competition) of the Coupe de France in recent seasons. Added sources to verify. Jogurney (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per findings above. Govvy (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment over 7000 teams participate in the Coupe de France at some level, that can't reasonably be the threshold for notability of club teams. (of course a team reaching the round of 64 is more likely to have significant coverage than a teamlosing in the first round) Based on the red links on 2011–12 Coupe de France, their performance doesn't seem enough to guarantee their notability. RSSSF and Soccerway are not sources that help to meet GNG, in my opinion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rounds 1-6 are typically considered preliminary rounds of the Coupe de France. This team, having participated in rounds 7 and 8, should pass the WP:NFOOTY threshold. SportingFlyer talk 03:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if you check the article, you will notice that AS Marck did indeed reach the round of 64 (verified by the Nice-Matin article). Jogurney (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above, played in national cup, notable. Giant Snowman 12:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirect can be created at editorial discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Hampton[edit]

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

Not seeing any notability for a fringe party leader. At best merge. Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Merging is highly *not* recommended. Nor is deletion. No longer a fringe party, but major interest to Albertans due to Liberal Trudeau federal government, and recent news at July 2018 about equalization not being renegotiated for Alberta. This is of major interest to Albertans at this time, Also applicable due to July 2018 merger with Freedom_Conservative_Party_of_Alberta and the rise of Derek_Fildebrandt in the Alberta legislature and as leader of this new party. Deleting Bart Hampton would remove a substantial link of explanatory history that would bridge the history from the Separation Party of Alberta to the Freedom_Conservative_Party_of_Alberta. Kermit7 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For a former party leader, he has a very low profile. I can find references to confirm that he was the party leader such as [4], but I can't find an interview with him or any background such as where he lives and what his educational and work background is. A politician who has never been elected can still be notable under WP:GNG, but I don't think he is. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure if anything can be merged into the party's article, but he appears to fail WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 22:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, former leader of a provincial fringe party (one that has yet to win a seat), and I see nothing to prove that he meets WP:GNG. PK T(alk) 13:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then recreate a redirect to Separation Party of Alberta. Minor political party leaders are not handed an automatic notability freebie as a standalone topic just because they exist — if you have to rely on primary sources, blogs and glancing namechecks of his existence to write anything more than "he exists", because there's no reliable source coverage that is substantively about him for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG, then he just gets a redirect to the party and not a standalone biography. Fildebrandt is actually an MLA and actually has reliable source coverage about him, so he's in a completely different notability league — but the fact that he has an article does not reify into an inclusion freebie for his predecessor, if his predecessor doesn't actually meet the required tests of serving in the legislature and/or having real reliable source media coverage about him to support an article. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. It appears that the nomination is based upon no sources being in the article, and therefore failing WP:ANYBIO. However, per WP:NEXIST, part of Wikipedia's main notability page, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles, it's based upon available sources. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid deletion rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August Alexander Levón[edit]

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

No sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO. » Shadowowl | talk 16:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Inappropriate reslisting 1 day after keep closing--if the closing is considered erroneous, use Deletion Review. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Education Not for Sale[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous afd was wrongly closed with only one keepvote. » Shadowowl | talk 15:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Loren[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, only reference is imdb and a search does not show up with anything noteworthy so also fails WP:GNG. Redalert2fan (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and the WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has no reliable sources at all. Wikipedia does not seek to be IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Zehnder[edit]

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a single-station television news director. As always, this is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article just because he exists, but the referencing here isn't cutting it in terms of getting him over WP:GNG -- nothing is properly footnoted, but instead there's simply a contextless linkfarm of external links in the references section, comprising a YouTube clip of the newscast's own self-created advertisement for itself, a news article which glancingly namechecks the subject's existence a single time in the process of not being about him, a news article whose only connection to Zehnder is that the bylined author happens to have been a former colleague of his, and five dead links whose content is unretrievable because the actual citation details (title, date, etc.) were never provided to dress up the naked URLs (and at least one of which would be a non-notability-supporting primary source even if it were retrievable.) This is not how you source a journalist as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local TV news directors are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources that could support notability are the three links to the San Francisco Chronicle (the rest are YouTube videos and the like). Two of them are dead and one is about Channel 5's "enduring appeal," something attributed to a list of factors, among which is news director Zehnder, mentioned twice. -The Gnome (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

José Pou[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced BLP of an animator, whose only apparent claim of notability is that he and his work exist. As always, existing does not guarantee a person a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- he needs to be reliably sourceable to media coverage which verifies a noteworthy achievement, such as winning a major award for his work or being the creator of a notable animated work, but nothing here satisfies either part of that equation. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant reliable source coverage to meet WP:BASIC, and doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE either. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and the WP:CREATIVE. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS at all found in a web search, and none provided in article. No RS, no article.96.127.242.226 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above analysis. Kraose (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Star (2017 film)#Soundtrack. Consensus that song was not notable in its own right, and a redirect to its primary usage/creation purpose is reasonable and fairly common (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can You See[edit]

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

Create a redirect to the film's soundtrack as this song fails WP:NSONG. This page has been recreated multiple times by an editor who ignored and removed my request to discuss on the talk page before editing. here Dom from Paris (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I don't believe this needs to be deleted, because this "Welcometothenewmillenium" editor could just restore the article again if it was. They need to learn it does not pass WP:NSONGS in its current state and to leave it redirected. Stub articles for every one of a band's songs is very common with these kinds of editors. Ss112 13:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and this is a legitimate redirect to the soundtrack album but as they are very insistent and refused to discuss the matter Afd seems to be the best way of having a community consensus on this page. Shame really. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Star (2017 film)#Soundtrack. Despite the #2 position, Billboard's "Holiday Digital Song Sales" chart isn't a notable chart. Since this is a soundtrack song that's not an official single, I would redirect to the film soundtrack instead of the artists' discography. — Newslinger talk 14:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Star (2017 film)#Soundtrack given the lack of notability/coverage for this song. Aoba47 (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fred DeLorey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a political campaign manager and non-winning election candidate, not well-sourced enough to clear WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. As always, neither of these are "inherently" notable things -- a campaign manager might be able to keep an article if he could be sourced well enough to clear GNG, but is not guaranteed an article just because he exists, and a person has to win the election, not just run in it, to clinch notability from an election -- but the referencing here, which consists of his initial candidacy announcement, the raw table of election results and a glancing namecheck of his existence in coverage of the MP he was campaign manager for, is not enough to make him notable. Bearcat (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. No significant coverage from reliable sources. The person didn't win the election, and has never held a notable political office. — Newslinger talk 13:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Newslinger - they've covered my argument well. SportingFlyer talk 22:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and for same reasons as other editors have already pointed out above. Cmr08 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete defeated candidates are very rarely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simran Choudhary[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMODEL and WP:NACTOR. Winner of a non-notable state/providence level beauty pageant. Trivial coverage in some notable publications do not warrant notability as per WP:GNG. Hitro talk 13:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete winning at the sub-national level does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Fitraak[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing but self published sources, not encyclopedia worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MutchyMan112 (talk • contribs)
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alexander Soifer. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geombinatorics[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason " Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by editor who added names of board members and the fact that Paul Erdős at one point was a board member, too. However, notability is not inherited and none of the databases indexing the journal is selective in the sense of NJournals. Therefore, PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is indexed in both main mathematical bibliographic databases (MathSciNet, Zentralblatt MATH). Everybody in the editorial board is a highly notable mathematician. The journal is cited in papers published in leading journals of the scope of the present journal (many papers can be found in Google Scholar with two-digit citation numbers, examples exist with 72 or 76 citations; Zentralblatt MATH writes about this journal: 87 Publications have been cited 225 times). --Tudor987 (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation from Erdős: --Tudor987 (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The success of Geombinatorics is due to many colleagues from all over the world who have for ten years contributed their thoughts and their aspirations to this quarterly. Some maturity manifested itself when Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt für Mathematik came on board and pronounced Geombinatorics to be their “publication of high density” (which meant that all Geombinatorics articles in their final form would be reviewed).
— Paul Erdős, http://geombina.uccs.edu/?page_id=78

Comment Please note that that number of citations would not even be enough to make a single academic notable, let alone a whole journal. As for the other arguments, please see the nom (and my response on my talk page to your earlier query) on why these arguments are invalid. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For your first argument, Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) Criterion 2 says: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. Then, The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journals are via bibliographic databases and citation indices, such as [...] Google Scholar, or [...] MathSciNet. And, If a journal meets any of the following criteria, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources, it qualifies for a stand-alone article. If I understand well, this means that citations are indeed relevant.

My other problem is that selective database is not well-defined. As far as I know, these two mathematical databases do not index non-trusted journals. --Tudor987 (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Citations are indeed relevant, but if a whole journal garners a number of citations that wouldn't even make a single person notable, then we have a problem. As for selective, those two math databases strive to be comprehensive, that is, they will include any mathematics journal (except obvious predatory ones). Other databases, like Scopus for example, select the best journals from among "trusted journals" and therefore are selective. MathSciNet and zbMath are not selective in that sense. --Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Citation counts are going to be low for pure mathematics; everyone involved seems to be a notable mathematician, so this looks to be another of those cases where merging to the publisher would be the reasonable thing to do if the article can't stand on its own. XOR'easter (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alexander Soifer. The only real notability guideline we have for journals is GNG, and by that criterion I can't find enough in-depth coverage of this journal to justify a separate article, even though this one is linked from some two dozen of our other articles. Having lots of incoming links used to be a notability criterion long ago but not in recent years. [5] and [6] are in-depth but not independent, and there are some independent mentions of the journal in connection with the Dănuț Marcu affair but not really in-depth ones. Citation count is a stupid way to evaluate professional mathematicians (if needed I can work at digging up statements from the professional societies saying so) and equally a stupid way to evaluate pure mathematics journals. And my understanding is that this is Soifer's personal journal (for instance it is called that by Ziegler in doi:10.1365/s13291-014-0101-y), so the article on him is the only plausible redirect target. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds good to me. XOR'easter (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Same for me. --Randykitty (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC) And BTW, as far as I am concerned, citation counts are a stupid way to evaluate any academic, not just mathematicians. The only evaluation that is even more stupid is looking at the impact factors of the journals where they publish... But the way we talk about sources on WP, we have to take citations into account because some people will argue that if an article has been cited by 3 other sources that means this article (or its author) meets GNG... --Randykitty (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) MutchyMan112 (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniil Shchenya[edit]

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

I am unable to find anything credible on an Internet search for this person. I also checked ru.wikipedia and am unable to find an article for him under there, under both Даниил Щеня (Russian) or Daniil Shchenya? MutchyMan112 (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator New evidence, he is in fact important and on the Russian wikipedia. MutchyMan112 (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The Russian Wikipedia article is Даниил Васильевич Щеня, which is interwiki linked to the English article. Failure of WP:BEFORE. Subject has an article in the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, and is mentioned in a large number of Russian books[7]. Kges1901 (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No valid reason to keep given while valid reasons to delete were. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Innovadores Foundation[edit]

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

Delete No indications of notability. References fail the criteria for establishing notability and are not "intellectually independent". Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor is it a substitute for a corporate web page nor is it a Yellow Pages. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references are fine, and I added another. Articles need not be primarily about a topic to be in-depth coverage of the topic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response' None of the references are fine, the Forbes one is a blog and fails WP:RS and the rest are not intellectually independent seeing as they rely on interviews and quotations with company officers and connected sources, specifically failing WP:ORGIND. Including the references you added. HighKing⁺⁺ 00:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is important so that the article meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, references are meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 23:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:ADVOCACY page on a nn non-profit; does not meet WP:NORG. Sources are in passing and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Fails WP:NCORP ,WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTADVOCACY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Significant coverage is missing. Capitals00 (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Motorways in the Republic of Ireland. Per User:Ww2censor, please evaluate how much material is actually worth merging, if any at all. Leave a redirect in any case. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of motorway service areas in Ireland[edit]

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

Majority of the list entries are just run of the mill service stations and have no notability at all. Four entries have already been deleted (3 using PROD and one through AfD and most of the others are likely to be deleted as well. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junction 14 Mayfield where the rest of the entries of this list are up for deletion. ww2censor (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the articles are notable, but is there a reason why the list wouldn't be notable? SportingFlyer talk 03:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the list is useful. Spleodrach (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL is not a valid reason for keep/delete. Ajf773 (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DOESNTBELONG is also not a valid for delete. Spleodrach (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIR and WP:GEOFEAT are though. Ajf773 (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DOSPAGWYA. Spleodrach (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although my argument is actually based on policy. Ajf773 (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, whatever, good for you! Spleodrach (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Motorways in the Republic of Ireland. The information is relevant there. I really don't think the list needs to be completely deleted since content does not need to be notable and it is useful, but it's not a valid split at this time. SportingFlyer talk 20:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, better argument than nominators WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale. Spleodrach (talk)

Merge to Motorways in the Republic of Ireland per User:SportingFlyer. Spleodrach (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Motorways in the Republic of Ireland per User:SportingFlyer. Finnegas (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to: Motorways in the Republic of Ireland. There is nothing to merge that is not already listed in that article. ww2censor (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Going through the WP:AfC process, while not strictly required, will provide some useful review. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Roadex Project[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:NOT. The article is unsourced, there is no significant coverage and it is written like an advert. The editor whose username is Z0 09:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Z0: How can you say it fails WP:V? This is an EU road infrastructure project, its obviously verifiable. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the claims in the article do not meet WP:V as there are no sources to verify them. E.g. these numbers - 71 technical reports, 4 DVDs and project movies, 37 technology demonstrations, A host of seminars and workshops need a source, otherwise they're WP:OR. The editor whose username is Z0 10:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. My point is that the content can be verified from the projects own website. As governmental EU project, it is a reliable source for verifiability. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So far I've found no such sources, it could be original research for all I know. The editor whose username is Z0 10:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Their website is linked in the article. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ZO, thank you for letting me know that the page for the ROADEX Project is being considered for deletion. It probably is my fault – I am a novice in these matters. I wrote the original page in 2010 and it sat happily on Wikipedia until I tried to bring it up to date this month. That said, a lot has happened with ROADEX since 2010. The EU part-funded projects ended in 2012 and ROADEX is now being self-funded by the Partners as the ROADEX NETWORK. My aim was (1) to make a historic record of the ROADEX project up to 2012, and then (2) to create a new page called the ROADEX NETWORK for the works done 2012-2018. These pages were published this month and Wikipedia has already suggested that I merge the new ROADEX NETWORK page into the ROADEX project page as they essentially deal with the same collaboration. I am planning to do this, and to add citations to the combined page to make it a better document. I am also obtaining permission from the ROADEX Lead Partner to permit Wikipedia to use ROADEX data. I have written a very brief COI on my talk page. I hope that this helps. Ron Ronmun (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. The article clearly needs some secondary sources added, I suggest sending it the draft area for work and republishing via AfC at a later time if and when it meets the various notability and writing standards. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan Frayae. I'll find out how to do this and also take the opportunity of merging The ROADEX Project with The ROADEX NETWORK into one page. Thanks for your suggestion. Ron Ronmun (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I should have clarified. Moving it to the draft area (draftification) is done once the discussion is closed, normally by the person who closes the discussion. The discussion will remain open for at least a week, during which time the page stays where it is. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification Frayae. I tried to move the page but got a lot of red boxes. I'll add some more citations on the current page. Ron Ronmun (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate in draft space. Article subject potentially meets WP:GNG with sources like Snow Engineering and Transportation Research Record . Article creator is committing to improving the sourcing and content. — Newslinger talk 04:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Newslinger. I will add these sources to the page in my next edit.Ronmun (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Rose[edit]

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

From what I found, the subject has been mentioned in a few media reports as being a part of musician Alicia Keys’s management/a business partner (she is reportedly a childhood friend of Keys), and received trivial mention (e.g., the one cited on the WP page) as a contributor to a 2002 Keys song. It was reported in 2016, that Keys had changed management and the subject, who was a co-manager, became her manager. Notability isn’t inherited; subject doesn’t meet notability for mentions of her association with a notable subject.

There is a review of a record she released in 2007. Apart from that, there doesn’t appear to be sufficient reliable third party coverage of the subject in detail/non-trivially or as separate from her aforementioned association to Keys.

Under the general notability guideline - (A) Does not meet WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". (B) Does not meet WP:NRV: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity". (C) Does not meet WP:SUSTAINED: "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual."

Does not meet any of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria under Notability: Music guideline - e.g.,: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Lapadite (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article was tagged with notability issue the day after it was created (May 11, 2009), as has since remained tagged. Moreover, the creation of the article may seem promotional as it is the only contribution from the editor who created it unsourced, and needless to say, the notability issue has since not been addressed with sources. Lapadite (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete getting a co-writer credit on one song just does not add to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It barely passes WP:COMPOSER since the song she co-wrote is notable, but that section also states "Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work." Since the only information about her is that she was born in 1980 and co-wrote the song, there's not much to merge. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 01:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Angry Grandpa. Per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD. The history is still visible, so if somebody wants to cherry-pick material to merge, go for it (but remember to comply with the spirit of WP:SMERGE for proper attribution). -- RoySmith (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KidBehindACamera[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. No coverage in reliable sources found by a verbatim Google search, kidbehindacamera. Being the guy who held the camera for another YouTuber who, as it happens, was his father is as close as the article comes to claiming any significance. Largoplazo (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as N is WP:NOTINHERITED; the sources are insufficient to indicate WP:V. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Partial~~Minimal merge to establish context and redirect to Angry Grandpa. Family members of notable people can be merged per WP:ATD-M.— Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 15:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the moment, there's virtually nothing to merge. The article consists entirely of unsourced assertions combined with directly sourced repetitions of the subject's online musings about his life, any of which could be fictional (as though raconteurs don't ever embellish their stories!), and bearing the weight that the subject himself has assigned to these details (as though any third party would mention in a bio that its subject put cotton in his ears as a child). Someone even just added the assertion that the subject is a Yankees fan, representing WP:OR by the editor that this is the case based on noticing that the subject wears a Yankees cap. Largoplazo (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do agree with what you've said Largoplazo, and I suppose I should clarify my !vote, since I've utterly failed to say anything. The sources are clearly insufficient for any substantial claim (independence also questionable), but I think they do establish (a) existence and (b) identity. Delete is certainly appropriate here, but a redirect would be helpful, and if we do point a redirect towards Angry Grandpa, we should probably add some information to establish context.— Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 13:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Angry Grandpa. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. No significant coverage from reliable sources. I've added a "KidBehindTheCamera" mention to the target article. — Newslinger talk 14:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 21:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 21:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 21:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bhaagamathie#Soundtrack. (non-admin closure) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 15:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mandaara[edit]

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

The song does not satisfy any of the criteria mentioned for WP:NSONG and can easily be merged into film article. Not moving it per WP:BOLD because creator is singer's fan and indulges into edit warring per past experience. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to respective film it was featured in. Fails WP:NSONGS. Insufficient sourcing, most of the info doesn't amount to anything more than a list of people who performed it and some release info, so any of that could be more succinctly covered at the film article if necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 12:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge mercifully into "Bhaagamathie" since subject lacks independent notability. A Redirect would be welcome. -The Gnome (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bhaagamathie#Soundtrack. Sourcing doesn't demonstrate independent notability - and even with a selective merge sourcing will still be problematic. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle York (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Written as a resume, TNT is appropriate even if the person is seen as notable, as it is that promotional. But in my mind, he is not notable. Nothing that indicates notability within this content, and the entry fails WP:SIGCOV Isingness (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references seem to show notability, and promotional phrases can be removed. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page is far too promotional but he does appear to meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delte for WP:VERIFY. I'm seeing a lot of "interview" type articles on business sites with little fact checking and/or editorial oversight. Where there is a top notch RS, The New York Times, he has only a passing mention. Also for WP:NOTHOST: Wikipedia is not here to supplement a Linkedin profile. Blue Riband► 02:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: due to transclusion limit
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The last relist seems to be in error (Eastmain's source is pretty accurate, beyond doubt).Closing, much earlier and moving to correct name. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 14:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chhedilal[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2006. Unknown if he is still alive, which if he is, would be a violation of WP:BLP. » Shadowowl | talk 18:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a credible notability claim being made here, but it's not supported by any reliable sourcing to verify that it's actually true. We've had a lot of articles created over the years about "notable" politicians who didn't really hold the political office they were claimed to have held, like the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Snipplet hoax — so it's not the unsourced claim of holding a notable political office that gets a person over WP:NPOL, but the reliable sourcing that can be shown to properly verify that the claim of holding a notable political office is true. I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody with better access to Indian media sourcing than I've got can find proper verification — but the baseline for inclusion in Wikipedia is not just what an article claims, but how well it sources what it claims. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This reference] spells his name as two words: Chhedi Lal. "Of all the Lieutenant Governors the tenure of Chhedi Lal is still remembered by the people here as he contributed a lot for the development of Pondicherry. The widening of a key thoroughfare _ Jawaharlal Nehru street _ and the construction of Kamban Kalai Arangam are among the good works contributed by Chhedi Lal." I think the reference in The Hindu is all the evidence needed to prove that this is not a hoax. https://books.google.com/books?id=iByKxEcEaiAC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=Chhedilal+Lieutenant+Governor&source=bl&ots=DTBNdl2Mxu&sig=hxqd-Yz-4U6qsb75rzIEOyuY8Sc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTupyH_bDcAhWhy4MKHem8DpEQ6AEIYjAH Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: due to transclusion limit
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that sources were added to the article after the nomination for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Risa Coda[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Criminal charges listed do not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not much care to protect these articles, but this one is better than most of its type. It is not the case that there are no reliable sources that discuss the subject directly; there are references from relatively reliable sources such as Sankei, plus relatively reliable tabloid sources like ZakZak and Nikkan Sports, and apparently even some sources in English, which discuss the subject in detail. I am not sure whether the porn-related stuff is notable (probably not), but the singing, writing, and coverage of legal trouble may be. The drug charges listed are much more noteworthy for a celebrity (?) in Japan than they might be in other places, given the harsh drug rules there. Dekimasuよ! 02:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable performer in pronography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notbality, Hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBiO & GNG/. –Davey2010^Talk 19:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --1l2l3k (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks like the only coverage in reliable sources is due to that WP:ONEEVENT, which is not a proper basis for writing a BLP. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Any merge can be discussed on the talk page or done manually. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Crayola[edit]

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

Redundant timeline. Merge to main Crayola article. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 23:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on History of Crayola crayons. This is a historical article, and it may make sense to have this timeline in the article on History of Crayola crayons. Vorbee (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is about the company's history, not just the crayons, and we're talking about adding the full contents of a sizeable article to an even bigger article. That doesn't make any sense. Keep them separate, since they serve different purposes, and would be unwieldy if combined. P Aculeius (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Listed for deletion by the same nominators:

P Aculeius (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merges to History of Crayola crayons (and Crayola for the non-crayon stuff). I agree with Vorbee about the benefits of a merge. Furthermore, there is a lot more genuine history here (albeit largely unreferenced) than there is in History of Crayola crayons, which is mostly stuffed with cruft that needs to be removed. I have suggested stubbing that back to quite a short article. Adding in some of the information here would build it back up in a more genuinely historical manner. Ideally the merges should be done more as prose rather than as lists and the merges should avoid most of the big lists of colours. That said, if we are to have a few lists of colours then the format here is infinitely preferable to the unverifiable multicoloured tables in the other articles. While product range introductions and discontinuations are good content, individual colour introductions and "retirements" are generally not notable and these should not be merged except in exceptional cases. All we need is a note saying something like When Crayola discontinues manufacture of a colour they term this "retirement" and then give a reference to prove this. That reference will presumably also provide the complete list of introduced and retired colours which should be enough to keep the fans happy without us needing to list them all. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per SK1; the nomination fails to advance any argument for deletion, instead requesting merger, for which there are ordinary processes of editing and discussion. See also WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm convinced that this was nominated too soon. However, it's been over two weeks, and of the original four main items listed when this was first nominated, three have been deleted and one was kept; that kept item has two subitems, one of which was nominated for and is still at AfD. While I'm sympathetic to the "this is dependent on the other articles" argument for keep, I don't think it convincingly holds water anymore. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Crayola colors[edit]

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

All of the entries on the list are listcruft, and most are on AFD. I believe that most of these AFDs will end in "delete", so what use do we have for this? Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 23:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon to say. If the rest get deleted at AfD (and I think that most of them will) then this should go too but lets not prejudge that. Also, should this be a list article and not a category? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. @Lojbanist:, you really had two reasonable options here (and I'd like to hear why you didn't go either route): bundle this list together with the other lists in one AFD, or wait until those are concluded to determine whether to proceed with this one. Starting this dependent AFD separately while the others are still pending just wastes time and causes a potential mess of inconsistent results. I suggest withdraw this and then wait, but as DanielRigal said, you can't base a deletion argument on what may or may not happen in other AFDs; only on what has happened. postdlf (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft. Calm Omaha (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crayola is a brand and the colours are products so this essentially breaches WP:NOTCATALOGUE. As each list entry is also in the process of AfD (and my preference is to delete all), this list of lists would end up becoming redundant. Ajf773 (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We have no prohibition on listing products. WP:NOTCATALOGUE specifically talks about not including "product pricing or availability information", it does not say "don't have information on products at all" (nor would there be consensus for that view). postdlf (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any policy-based reason for deletion here. Lists of articles make for perfectly valid list-based articles, per WP:LIST and WP:CLN. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. As a navigation aid, I don't see this has any value beyond what we get from Category:Crayola, and there's only a few entries left anyway. On the other hand, this seems like much ado about nothing. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with postdlf that it is Too Soon. The other articles in that list may be deleted, but by WP:CRYSTAL, this can't be deleted until those other articles are. This should definitely be revisited in the next 2-3 months if they are deleted. However, given that this list is so short regardless of whether or not the other articles are deleted, a 2nd nomination could also have the reason Too short of a list. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Rodriguez (television producer)[edit]

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

I'm not finding enough content about this guy to substantiate a claim of notability under WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. There are a lot of trivial mentions in the vein of "producer Jesse Rodriguez was there" or "Jesse Rodriguez says X", but very little of actual substance. The longest article about him was this one from the Washington Examiner, but one "man tweets at Trump" story does not an article make. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Search finds no significant coverage of subject. Possible avenue to notability through WP:ANYBIO award criteria, but claim of responsibility for station's Murrow award not verifiable and HHF award is not well-known or significant in the Wikipedia sense. Bakazaka (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Leghari[edit]

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

Delete the sourcing here does not demonstrate notability. The tone is unencyclopedic, the text is in non-standard English, and I am not sure if my edits actually kept to the intention. Some of the people mentioned may be notable and worth creating an article on, but there is just not the sourcing to show that this individual meets notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Mádle[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Simione001 (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails GNG and NFootball. Govvy (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete semi-pro footballers are almost never notable, and there is nothing suggesting Madle is an exception to this general rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --1l2l3k (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bibin George[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NACTOR Kleuske (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being too soon to show notability. He has had a single lead role. If he gets awards for that role, or more significant coverage (outside of gossip rags), we could re-create the article. But now, he fails notability. 21:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Sentosa (state constituency). And merge Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kota Alam Shah (state constituency)[edit]

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

Same entity as Sentosa (state constituency) and should merge into it. angys (Talk Talk) 07:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems like it should have been moved to Sentosa (state constituency) before the election. Given that Sentosa has been created, a simple merge or a merge proposal would have been easier per WP:MERGEPROP. If someone wants to keep the two separate, then a merge proposal would allow those involved in both articles to discuss whether to merge or not to merge. Hzh (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to be the wrong forum: this doesn't seem to be an AfD and should instead be a merge request. Keep on that note. SportingFlyer talk 22:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Yuxin[edit]

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

Amateur athletes are not normally considered notable. Failing WP:NGOLF and also WP:GNG. A few mentions in game summary articles, but not sufficient for notability. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the golf notability criteria, the fourth qualification is: "They have won at least one recognized amateur golf tournament at the national or international level". Lin won the 2017 Asia-Pacific Amateur Championship which is organised in conjunction with the Masters Tournament and The R&A, who are the organisers of The Open Championship. Starting in 2018, the winner receives an invitation to both the Masters and The Open Championship. Lin is therefore the first player to gain that invitation which enhances the prestige and status of the Asia-Pacific to the same "elite" level as the U.S. Amateur, British Amateur and European Amateur championships. I would agree that Asia-Pacific winners before 2017 might not share Lin's distinction unless they have satisfied other notability criteria. As for the GNG, Lin's achievements in winning an elite competition and taking part in the two majors indicate that wider coverage exists and further verification can be found. Thanks. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes 4 of WP:NGOLF. Won the 2017 Asia-Pacific Amateur Championship, one of the handful of elite events on the WAGR: World Amateur Golf Ranking#Elite events (https://www.wagr.com/playerprofile/yuxin-lin-14939) Nigej (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My bad. Over-read the "amanteur" in notability reason 4. Will speedy close and withdraw. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cube26[edit]

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

promotional and non notable. Does not meet WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP amd WP:ORGIND. Classic start-up description. scope_creep (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - So there is a great deal of coverage on Cube26. Most of it is removed for failing not reliable or not independent. Pretty much of all of the remainder fails because it is almost entirely talking about its takeover or funding, with only a couple of lines devoted to the actual company. NDTV Source (also has another article with link inside) however gives a reasonable amount of coverage, seemingly satisfying the various criteria. There are also some reasonable sources discussing one product of its, but again not really mentioning the company, which I viewed as sort of a counter-part issue of O1E. However, with so much of this around, I wouldn't be shocked to find at least one more reasonable source somewhere that changes my !vote. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I added text on the recent acquisition of the company by Paytm, of which some coverage is available. However, neither that nor the available coverage of funding announcements and the company's previous ventures in gesture-based device control,[8], in OEM software and in phone and IoT hardware seem to me to rise above the routine propositional coverage of a firm seeking a sustainable business line. I am not seeing enough to demonstrate lasting encyclopaedic notability as per WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is far from the depth or persistence of coverage demanded by even basic compliance with WP:NCORP. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Connor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

promotional and non notable, from known sockpuppet. The books are self published, and such books do not iindicate even probably notability. The awards are less important than they sound, and theclaim to have influenced a major policy iniative is very indirect. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - promotional, but probably can be fixed. Bearian (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A motivational speaker and self-published author. References describe him as a "high-school teacher" and a "reverend" in articles about organizations he has worked with. None of the references are substantial enough to meet WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Brookens[edit]

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

Non-notable aspiring filmmaker. No coverage in any reliable secondary sources. 4 references are dead links and the last is to the shorts he submitted to Funny or Die. Amsgearing (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as article creator. The links, with one exception that I deleted, have been repaired, and include a feature write up in The State Journal-Register and note a Best Feature Comedy award at the Route 66 Film Festival. I have now added Brookens’ reasonably substantial IMDb resume as an external link, and a retrospective showing in Los Angeles of a Brookens film referenced at Columbia College Chicago. The article had not been expanded for some time, so I understand the nominator’s misunderstanding, given the links I have fixed, but this nomination is without merit. Jusdafax (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's a quick rundown of the (admittedly creative) link padding that the creator has contributed:

A list of shorts that were screened at Columbia College Chicago in which his name is mentioned, no coverage of him.
An interview from 2004 on the indie film blog Film Threat.
The State Journal-Register blurb (not a feature, as claimed) which was entirely written by Brookens himself in 2008.
A list of the films at the 2008 Route 66 Film Festival in which his name is mentioned; again, no coverage.
A discussion of his film "Art of Pain" on a non-notable blog called "Culture Blues".
A link to ArtofPainMovie.com, self-published source.
A link to his one submission on Funny Or Die; primary source.
A repeat of the same State Journal-Register blurb.

That's it. Not one of them is a reliable secondary source that provides in-depth coverage of the subject, with the possible exception of the Film Threat interview from 2004, but if that's all there is, that's not lasting coverage, and he obviously falls far short of what's required in WP:GNG. Don't even look at WP:FILMMAKER because he doesn't even come close to any of the 4 requirements there. So, no, there is no "misunderstanding" on the nominator's part - this is a non-notable filmmaker without significant coverage in reliable sources. Sorry. Maybe someday, but certainly WP:TOOSOON at the moment. Amsgearing (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The " The State Journal-Register blurb" isn't credited (I think you may have mistaken the picture title for the author credit), but in any case I agree, it's not RS.96.127.242.226 (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I meant was, it's obviously a boilerplate list of questions that was sent to Brookens, and his replies to those questions are 99% of the piece. Hence, he essentially wrote the piece himself. Amsgearing (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and the WP:FILMMAKER. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 20:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Amsgearing (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only decent ref is the The State Journal-Register interview, and interviews are not RS.96.127.242.226 (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 05:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I see no significant coverage from independent & reliable sources. Best coverage is interview from local Springfield paper in "Getting to know local artists" section.Sandals1 (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill upand coming film artist. Bearian (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmood Ul Hassan Siddiqui[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As per several source searches, does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saffron Henderson[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR maybe redirect to her father's page Dom from Paris (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Voice actors are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie just because they've had roles — the notability test is not the having of roles per se, but the depth and range and breadth of reliable source coverage that they did or did not receive for having roles. But a profile in an IMDb-like directory of voice actors is not a reliable or notability-assisting source. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and WP:TROUT nominator:~~ ~~Oppose bad-faith nomination:~~ Speedy keep: WP:BEFORE was not followed here. I found and added links to two interviews, on top of the existing one, within a few minutes whilst having no previous involvement with the article. WP:GNG is now definitely passed (though the article needs significant improvement). Modernponderer (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These WP:INTERVIEWS are primary sources so of very little use in showing notability. GNG requires in depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. One of the interviews in what seems to be a defunct blog was conducted by another voice actor who worked on the same animation films as she did so unlikely to be independent. If you have any sources that actually support notability I'd be happy to self trout but those do not made the grade by a long chalk. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your own link explains that it's a matter of controversy as to whether interviews are primary or secondary. I'd also add that one of the links in your original nomination, WP:NACTOR, contradicts said nomination as well: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

Given these facts, as well as the depth of coverage in said interviews, my trout here is only strengthened. Modernponderer (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "in a nutshell" part at the top of the page explains it better than I can. Interviews generally count as primary sources, but commentary added to interviews by a publication can sometimes count as secondary-source material. Interviews may be published in reliable publications, but that does not make primary source material contained in them acceptable to cite claims for which Wikipedia requires secondary sources.. Hope that helps. Also repeated use of the meme trout can make you look a little silly if there are other users, especially very experienced ones that have !voted delete. I don't know if it's supposed to be funny or rude. Better to use it sparingly or the joke wears thin and starts to become rude. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You claim you're a very experienced user, yet you haven't even mentioned the banner right above it that clearly states that the page is NOT a policy or guideline.

Also I don't see anyone else commenting here after me, so I'm not sure what "other users" you are referring to. I only see a single other comment made before my arguments and expansion of the article. Modernponderer (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PERESSAY but of course essays do not have the same weight as policy and guidelines but they do help in deletion arguments. If you want to find a policy that backs up this essay try WP:NOR which says in the footnotes Further examples of primary sources include...interviews and WP:N says "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.. Hope that helps. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that "proper" secondary sources should be preferred wherever possible. I cannot agree with the notion that articles should be outright deleted because only sources of a slightly lesser calibre (still reliable and independent) have been found. Modernponderer (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

if you step back and think about what you are saying you are basically advocating using primary sources to show notability when secondary ones don't exist which is against policy and guidelines. Anyway we will have to agree to disagree no point in taking this discussion further. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you don't get to just end the discussion after misrepresenting both my statements and policy. Nowhere have I agreed, nor is it clearly stated, that interviews are purely primary sources (your ~~sneaky~~ incomplete excerpt from WP:NOR notwithstanding). THAT is the real bottom line here, and now this debate can end I suppose. Modernponderer (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews, a class of source that represents the subject speaking about herself rather than being spoken about by other people, are NOT notability-clinching sources in and of themselves. They can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by stronger sources, but they do not confer a pass of GNG in and of themselves if they are the strongest sources on offer. So no, the nominator is not getting trouted for this. Bearcat (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I've removed the trout. But not for the reasons both of you are claiming – rather, it's pretty obvious from the extended discussion that this nomination was made in bad faith, and that you are supporting this as a fellow deletionist no matter what.

If either of you wants to have your arguments taken seriously you might want to cite policies and guidelines (NOT essays) that support your exact point of view, as opposed to some variation of it. Modernponderer (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not anybody's "fellow deletionist". I am an editor with a correct understanding of how Wikipedia's inclusion rules work, which is that nobody in any field of occupation ever gets a notability freebie just for existing if their notability claim is not reliably sourceable to substantive WP:GNG-eligible media coverage about them. We're an encyclopedia, not a free directory of everybody who exists and has a job — articles get kept or deleted on the basis of whether they properly demonstrate that the subject passes defined notability and sourceability standards, not on the basis of some mythical deletionism vs. inclusionism war. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionism vs. inclusionism is not mythical – it is a fundamental, ideological disagreement that is pervasive on Wikipedia. But there is little point in continuing this discussion until such time as one of you has provided the requisite direct policy quotation(s), and not just your opinion of what notability means here. Modernponderer (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, yes it is mythical, because it's not an accurate reflection of what actually happens on Wikipedia. There is no "deletionist" faction that believes in marauding through fields of solid articles to kill them just because they subscribe to some imaginary ideology of deleting stuff for the sake of deleting stuff, for starters — stuff gets deleted for valid reasons, such as non-compliance with our inclusion and sourcing rules, and not just because somebody who likes deleting good stuff for shits and giggles kidnapped it. Sure, some people want our inclusion standards loosened up to the point where everybody and everything that exists at all is entitled to have an article that can never be deleted for any reason — but having no inclusion standards is not a viable approach to building an encyclopedia. Lines have to be drawn somewhere between what is or is not appropriate for inclusion here — but while there may be some disagreement about where those lines should be drawn in some cases, that is not the same thing as what people mean when they talk about "inclusionism vs. deletionism", because again, there is no such thing as any group on Wikipedia that believes in tearing down good stuff just because a delete function exists.

Secondly, please read up on why "that's only an essay" is not a valid argument in an AFD discussion: note, in particular, the part where it explicitly states that "we have policies which tell us what to do and why to do it, and guidelines to help us with how to do it." Notability standards and reliable sourcing rules are not less binding just because they're spelled out in guideline essays rather than formal policy statements: they exists as clarifiers of how policy plays out in practice, and thus are equally binding in the absence of a compelling reason why a special exception to them would be warranted.

The bottom line is, this is how Wikipedia works: the baseline for inclusion is that the person has a strong and credible notability claim, backed up by a WP:GNG-satisfying volume of reliable source coverage about her to verify that the notability claim and the article content are actually true. Both of those conditions have to be met, because if reliable sources were not necessary as long as something that sounds notable was asserted, then people would be able to get into Wikipedia by self-declaring themselves as the presidents of unrecognized micronations, or by claiming to have had charting hits as a musician that they didn't really have, and on and so forth — and if a notability claim weren't necessary as long as any form of sourcing whatsoever was present, then people could game our rules by getting their friends to conduct fake "interviews" with them on YouTube or by self-creating their own "coverage" on a crowdsourced "citizen journalism" website. So Wikipedia has rules about what counts as a valid notability claim, and what types of sources are acceptable support for it, for the purposes of making a person eligible to have a Wikipedia article — because as a platform that people regularly try to use and abuse for publicity, we have to have and enforce standards of notability and sourcing if we want to hold the line on being an encyclopedia instead of just a social networking site. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of taking my advice, you posted a long rant. Nevertheless, I will address a few of your points, if only to deter others from believing in this nonsense.

It is to the obvious advantage of the deletionist faction to claim it does not exist. If the amount of salvageable encyclopedic content lost this way were ever recognized, there would be protests throughout Wikipedia, swiftly followed by administrator action.
The reason the claim "it's only an essay" is 100% valid is because essays do NOT represent consensus. There is no requirement, in fact, for them to represent anything more than the individual opinion of ONE editor. It is not remotely uncommon for essays to outright contradict established policy (and though some of these are userfied, not all are)! If such an editor participated in a discussion like this, their opinion would be weighed as but one !vote – yet because they wrote an "essay", it is suddenly worth much more?
Finally, and this is the real issue that destroys the case for deletion of this page: these interviews are from reliable and independent sources. You have tried to conflate them with hypothetical "interviews conducted by friends" and "citizen journalism", knowing full well that this is not the case here.

So please: either post the direct quotation(s) from policy that support your side, or WP:DROPTHESTICK. Modernponderer (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of "salvageable" encyclopedic content that gets deleted in a year adds up to a molehill next to the Mount Everest of garbage that gets correctly deleted for not meeting our requirements at all. And since deletion does not prevent somebody from recreating an article again if they can do a better job than the first version did, that molehill amounts to a non-existent problem — it is not our job to keep a badly written and badly sourced article just because improvement might be possible, it is the job of the person who wants the article to exist to make it good enough to get kept in the first place.
Wikipedia guidelines do represent consensus, and do not represent the individual opinions of just one person. User essays can be individual opinions, and as such do not carry much weight in policy and procedure discussions — but formal Wikipedia guideline essays, which are not the same thing as user essays, do represent the weight of consensus.
It doesn't matter what type of source the interview appears in — the issue with interviews is the question of who's doing the speaking. People do not get over a Wikipedia inclusion guideline by talking about themselves — for a source to count toward getting a person over GNG, it has to represent other people who are not Saffron Henderson talking about her in the third person. Sources in which Saffron Henderson is talking about herself in the first person can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by third person sourcing, but do not carry a GNG pass in and of themselves if they're the best sources on offer. To assist passage of GNG, a source must be written in the third person by somebody other than the subject herself. (And no, the fact that somebody else transcribed her words in the process of laying out the article does not cover that off — because it's still her own words being transcribed.)
You have already been pointed to all of the policy and guideline documents necessary to demonstrate that every word I have written in this discussion is one hundred per cent correct. Again, guidelines are not the same thing as user essays: guidelines do not represent individual opinions, but rather do represent the weight of established Wikipedia consensus. Notability has to be covered off by reliable sourcing, that's not even up for debate here. But interviews are not notability-assisting sources, because they represent the subject talking about herself — they are fine as verifiers of additional fact after notability has already been covered off by the more correct class of sourcing, but they do not make notability in and of themselves if they're the only class of sourcing being used. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Bearcat so patiently points out this essay explains the policy and guidelines that says 1/ secondary sources are needed and 2/why interviews are not secondary sources. I think that you should take your own advice about dropping the stick.Dom from Paris (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Domdeparis and User:Bearcat, I am indeed dropping out of this discussion now. Let it be known, however, that this is because each of you has blatantly lied here at least once (cutting out a highly unfavorable portion of a policy quote as I pointed out before, and now stating that essays represent consensus when even the template at the top of the essay under discussion very clearly states that they do not). I am unsure why this type of conduct continues to be tolerated, but sadly I am not in a position to pursue this any further at this time. Modernponderer (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Modernponderer: Accusing other users of being WP:LIARS without proof is a WP:PERSONAL ATTACK please strike your comment. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the wrong username, citing an essay AGAIN, making false claims (again), and messing up the formatting here for a second time... wow. (Not to mention dragging me back into a discussion I had already decided to leave.) Nevertheless, I have struck out the comments in question but only because ~~unlike you~~ I try to follow policy, and conduct is technically not supposed to be debated on pages such as these, only content. Modernponderer (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing is a little hard to find, and the results tend to be a small amount of material over a wide variety of sources. Nevertheless, I think there is enough there to put together an article that can comply with our BLP policies. I've added two book citations to help move things along. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the book sources and the Deformed and Destructive Beings is really a passing mention that says the more accomplished Geena Davis in the original; lookalike Saffron Henderson in the sequel and in the The Gorehound's Guide to Splatter Films of the 1980s she is listed in 2 cast lists and talks about her without being named as a "stand-in" for Geena Davis who was maybe "above horror films at this point in time". I can't really see this adding to her notability to be honest. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was kind of my point - the sourcing is lots of publications, but only a few sentences in each, so it's a marginal case. Another way of looking at it, when consulting alternatives to deletion, is to redirect somewhere. But there's no obvious target to redirect as she's had her fingers in so many pies (so to speak). That generally leaves "keep" as the only option left. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that there are a lot of actors (voice and otherwise) that have been knocking around for years so they have a long list of credits and have a few interviews in trade or niche magazines but as they have never really made the big time there is no real in depth coverage. As she comes from a show biz family I think we could redirect to this section Bill_Henderson_(Canadian_singer)#Personal on her father's page that mentions her and if she ever gets that big role then the page can be expanded. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A careful reading of NOR shows that there's a context in which interviews can be considered primary sources. There's also context where they shouldn't. I think on balance there's enough here, especially as there's far too much for delete IMHO and, as Richie says, no obvious redirect target. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any independent sources on her (such as feature articles): there are no independent secondary sources that aren't directory listings. She's done a few interviews, but it's difficult to count those toward notability. No prejudice on recreation/read this as a changed vote if a feature article or two has gone missing. SportingFlyer talk 06:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final re-list to check if a stronger and more evident consensus can emerge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 05:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No doubt of notability. However the article's a mess and needs to be set up better. And what's the story with her date of birth???? Is it September 25, 1965 or is it December 27, 1967? Interesting to learn that Chris Walas had hired her to appear as Veronica Quaife in the opening sequence of The Fly II. Tidy it up and you'll have no problems. 10:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Notability does not attach to the claims that an article makes, it attaches to the quality and reliability and depth of the sources being shown to support the claims. Bearcat (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Passes WP:NACTOR from her work with the Dragon Ball series alone, imo. As others have said, needs some serious tidying. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam the Kid[edit]

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

Consists of unreliable sources. Someone speaking Portuguese should assess the reliability of the Rimasebatidas source, as that is the only source that can possible be reliable.. » Shadowowl | talk 16:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm currently replacing all the sources; just a note to !voters: this[9] was the version that was nominated for deletion. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Subject clears WP:GNG, as he has got "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As of now, all of the sources present in the article are reliable, so no issues on that front. The book, the magazine article and the french review make for significant coverage that is independent of the subject, as well as the news article from Diário Notícias Madeira. This source[10] does have a very significant intro on the artists preceding the interview. Sources as this[11] or the documentary (both on big public TV channels) do show his relevance on the field of Portuguese hip-hop. The article still requires clean up and some expanding using the provided sources but alas, AFD is not clean up. A WP:BEFORE would have been appreciated, though. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 05:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know how an editor who does not speak Portuguese think they can possibly vet sources here. A source has been added, subject is a veteran on the Portuguese hip-hop scene and meets GNG, it is merely a matter of translating the Portuguese article. This nomination is one of the now retired User:Shadowowl's 239 nominations within a few weeks. Filed within a few minutes of their last edit, I don't think due diligence or any policy-required ATD-considerations were given proper attention. Sam Sailor 08:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the comment above that the referenced was replaced? This was the article version that was nominated https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_the_Kid&oldid=850234823 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

En Kelvikku Enna Bathil[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM as it has no reliable sources » Shadowowl | talk 16:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Renowned award-winning director. Starring the iconic actor Rajinikanth and Sripriya. Nationally released theatrical film. These are all passing criteria of WP:NFILM. Current state of article has nothing to do with notability and this AfD reeks of WP:BIAS (such an American film with the same article state would never be considered for deletion). --Oakshade (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Oakshade that this should pass GNG, but have failed to find a single non-trivial mention. Book-length biographies of Rajinikanth barely mention this film (one fails to mention it at all, the other lists the title in a filmography with no additional detail). The Youtube links are presumably copyvios and should be removed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While advising Oakshade to withhold from accusing nominators of bias, this discussion is being re-listed for clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 05:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no one has presented the indepth secondary sourcing needed to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Sorry, just nothing in some of the most comprehensive books on Southern Film Industry.I managed to extract the cast-list, runtime and year of production; nothing else.∯WBG^converse 13:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LiveWorkPlay[edit]

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

Potentially fails WP:NCORP. This article has a lot of garbage sources. » Shadowowl | talk 16:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have formatted most of the bare url references to use cite templates. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wow, these sources are truly rough, even after being filled in. Sources I'm finding - Ottawa Sun profile, sponsored content, several mentions in the Ottawa Citizen with one profile of their 20th anniversary, and a mention in the National Post. Some of their volunteers have received a governmental award. Their media page is also a mess of local news articles/broadcasts where their founders/volunteers were mentioned or made a comment. They seem to do great and important work, but they don't seem to pass WP:NCORP. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 04:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weak sources, a WP:BEFORE search does not turn up anything better. Clearly fails WP:CORP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 05:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. On strength of the arguments, deletion wins here. Keep !votes are primarily "seems notable" without in-depth analysis of sourcing, and those advocating deletion provide reasons backed up by guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hinkel Bakery[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill company. No sources. » Shadowowl | talk 17:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I thought this would be a reasonable AfD given the article, but it turns out there are a number of sources as well as one that indicates there is also a TV show - an argument that a good WP:BEFORE check has to check foreign-based articles in both languages. Sources (in no particular order) include: Source 1, Source 2, Source 3, Source 4, Source 5. There are others that a quick look can find. I reckon at least 3 of these tick the boxes (obviously my knowledge of german news sources isn't widespread). Nosebagbear (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Equally, there's an argument for a good old check on the relevant WP:NCORP guidelines (which have been recently revised) and required "intellectually independent" references. None of the references you've provided meet this requirement. HighKing⁺⁺
- Comment: In the TV show Frag doch mal die Maus Bäckerei Josef Hinkel and Bäckerei Michael Hinkel are two of nine bakeries from Düsseldorf which take part in baking a gingerbread house: “Bäckerei Josef Hinkel, Hercules Vollkorn- und Mühlenbäckerei, Bäckerei Pass, Bäckerei Schüren, Bäckerei Kapust, Stadtbäcker Westerhorstmann, Bäckerei Behmer, Bäckerei Michael Hinkel und die Bäckerei Puppe.” [12] --AlternativesLebensglück (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added the references suggested by @Nosebagbear:. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources identified by Nosebagbear and added to the article by ~~Amorymeltzer~~ Eastmain are not "intellectually independent" and therefore fail WP:ORGIND. This rp-online.de reference repeats a post on the company's Facebook page (PRIMARY source) and fails ORGIND. This backwelt.de reference has no attributed journalist and is simply an ad or announcement for a TV show with a photo of Josef Hinkel. The company is a mere mention-in-passing with no in-depth information. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The tonight.de reference is a local guide to someone's "5 favorite shops in Dusseldorf" and provides a profile of the Hinkels and some of the products but does not provide any in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The ekathimerini.com reference relies entirely on an interview with Stavros whose bread is available in the Hinkel bakery and also relies on interview/quotation from Hinkel. It contains no intellectually independent information or analysis and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Finally, the derwesten.de reference is an ad for "kiffer krust" bread (made with hemp) which was presented on the bakery's Facebook page. Fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Overall, it appears that the Hinkel Bakery is popular and much loved in Dusseldorg for its excellent bread but that doesn't translate to an organization that meets the criteria for notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @HighKing: I didn't add any sources or edit the article at all; I think you mean Eastmain. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed, thank you! HighKing⁺⁺ 21:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @HighKing: The television program itself is an independent indicator of notability from a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Eastmain Unless the TV program was actually about the bakery, then it isn't an indicator of notability. The fact is, the TV program was about craft bakers from the Düsseldorf area baking a huge gingerbread house. That might make the gingerbread house notable (maybe it broke records?) but it doesn't make the bakers notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Editors may want to take a look at the corresponding German article at de:Bäckerei Hinkel, which has additional references. It is also at the German equivalent of AfD. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This bakery is not notable. 5 shops and 4 Mio. Euro is not enough. Other bakeries have 18 shops and 250 employees. [13] --AlternativesLebensglück (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at WP:OTHER - normally its an argument from those trying to demonstrate notability but it applies both ways. Smaller companies are frequently more notable than their larger equivalents. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a small local bakery which is not well-known outside Düsseldorf. All the newspaper reports are from Düsseldorf. --AlternativesLebensglück (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how large a population is needed before its coverage becomes wide enough (regardless of geographical size). For example, my (UK) countywide paper is considered reliable, and its population is only about 5% more than Dusseldorf's. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the newspapers reports are just reproductions of a facebook entries of the Hinkel bakery which were reprinted in the newspaper which advertise a new kind of bread with marihuana seeds. Baking Bread: Düsseldorfer Bäckerei verkauft "Kiffer-Kruste", rp-online.de (Bakery in Düsseldorf sells "marihuana smoker crust"); „Baking Bread“: Düsseldorfer Bäckerei verkauft „Kiffer-Kruste“ mit Hanfsamen und Hanföl, bakery Düsseldorf from Düsseldorf sells "marihuana smoker crust") The writing style is advertising and not neutral. Entry on Facebook

Tonight is just an online portal of Rheinische Post which isn't published in print. Five bakeries from Düsseldorf are mentioned: Bulle, Hinkel, isabella, Puppe and Terbuyken. ',

The TV show Frag doch mal die Maus shows a short documentary film about baking a gingerbread house. Nine local bakeries from Düsseldorf were involved: Josef Hinkel, Michael Hinkel which belong to the founder of Hinkel bakery and seven other bakeries, Hercules, Pass, Schüren, Kapust, Westerhorstmann, Behmer and Puppe. (“Beteiligt sind: Bäckerei Josef Hinkel, Hercules Vollkorn- und Mühlenbäckerei, Bäckerei Pass, Bäckerei Schüren, Bäckerei Kapust, Stadtbäcker Westerhorstmann, Bäckerei Behmer, Bäckerei Michael Hinkel und die Bäckerei Puppe.”) Bäckerei means bakery. [14], Backwelt is not a newspaper, but an online portal for bakeries.

http://www.ekathimerini.com/214045/article/ekathimerini/community/award-winning-stavros-evangelous-smyrnaean-bread-proves-a-hit-in-dusseldorf deals with a Greek baker who works at the bakery. The newspaper report is not focused on the Hinkel bakery, but on the Greek baker. --AlternativesLebensglück (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough with coverage beyond local sources, should qualify under WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MILL is not policy and it's easy to find sources when you allow for the language, e.g. this. Andrew D. (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response True, but just to point out that you haven't pointed to any policies to support your argument. WP:GNG and WP:NCORP are the guidelines for corporations/organizations and your link above fails since it is not significant coverage and isn't even about the bakery but about one of the bakers. Your reference fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. Also, two references are required that meet the criteria for establishing notability and so far, we don't have any. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:GNG and WP:NCORP aren't policies either; they are mere guidelines. It's up to the nominator to make a case for action to be taken but actual policies which support my position include: WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lovely strawman argument - I never said they were policies. But they are the relevant guidelines which provide clarification on how to interpret our policies and are accepted by the community as such. You can call them "mere guidelines" if you like but they're considered an excellent standard by which to measure notability of articles such as this one. I'll leave it to the closing admin to make sense and understand the relevance of the policies you've listed above. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing und AlternativesLebensglück -- DexterPointy (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see a clear argument this article must be kept or deleted. Coverage of this bakery as one of nine that baked a gingerbread house is clearly trivial, and this is a PR gimmick. Other coverage (such as [15]) is more substantial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Wettreich[edit]

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur and his business ventures. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP and / or routine notices about the subject's businesses, which are non-notable either. Created by Special:Contributions/Clint1885 with no other contributions outside this topic, and then exclusively edited by a variety of SPAs. Ernst & Young "Entrepreneur of the Year" is an award that's not significant and well known. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment needs a ton of cleanup. This is a spammy loaf that looks like a personal corporate bio. With that said, there are entries here in a publication called Exame. Is that a worthwhile Brazilian rag? Not prepared to make a determining to keep without more info on whether local sources are valid. Leaning to keep but that could change if published sources are just nonsense. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 14:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Portugal Wikipedia mentions him as a creator of the iBest Award only, no biography there.Xx236 (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I've done cleanup on the citations and added a 4th, FYI. This is the Diff. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unless there are clear policy-based keep or delete or alternative suggestions, there's no consensus evident here as of now...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: the sources added to the article do not amount to notability. They are unselective databases and self-published newsletters:

"Marcos Wettreich — Founder & CEO @ Brasil CT". Crunchbase. Retrieved July 20, 2018.
"How does online video stack up against TV?". Marketingservicestalk. July 20, 2007. Archived from the original on October 13, 2007.
"Brasil Telecom Buys Stake in iBest"Free access subject to limited trial, subscription normally required. Brazil Telecom Newsletter. Boston: Information Gatekeepers. 5 (12): 10. December 2001 – via Google Books.
"Marcos Wettreich: Executive Profile & Biography". Bloomberg. Retrieved July 20, 2018.

None meet WP:SIGCOV requirement for independent, secondary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of reliable sources. While it is reliable, the Bloomberg listing is so insignificant that it lacks even his age, compensation, or board memberships. His entrepreneurial endeavors are so run of the mill that none have their own articles. The date of birth appears to be original research from the subject himself. We are a web host for every businessman who wants his own soapbox - we are a charity with a serious mission. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Whether or not it is currently accepted in credible Physiological circles, it has been convincingly demonstrated that the topic has been widely discussed for more than a century. This close in no way indicates that the current state of the article is balanced or comprehensive. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dromomania[edit]

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

Spent a bit doing some research on this and so far as I can tell, this is a pseudo-science fringe-theory type nonsense article. The alternate name "clinical travel addiction" brings up even less than "Dromomania" and scholarly papers give zilch (aside from a footnote in one paper.) Google results in multiple languages bring up a lot of nonsense and circular references and despite several claims that this is in the DSM, after looking for it myself, I can find no evidence that Dromomania or it's various names is a notable or real affliction and it certainly isn't in the DSM. This appears to be more like a sensational Buzzfeed-esque headline than anything encyclopedic. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My edits were what prompted the deletion in the first place. I can confirm dromomania is not in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The term was popularized by Mad Travelers (2000), which is a biography and not a scientific work. I suppose it's not forever? I'm still kind of rooting for dromomania because it's so bizarre :) Maybe the article can be reintroduced if the term becomes so popular to be included in dictionaries. Contains Sulfites (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources exist a long time before that. The case mentioned (from the 19th century) appears to be more like dissociative fugue, which is still recognised for now, but the definition encompasses both that and wanderlust; could it be that it was once recognised as a disorder but is now not? I don't think it's an exact match for either so redirect would be misleading, and notability is not temporary. Peter James (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Also the nominator had just redirected Jean-Albert Dadas to it, with a summary including "covered by actual RS in the target" - if that is true, it shouldn't be deleted. Peter James (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that was my mistake but I was also restoring an existing redirect. I stand by my AfD. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. This is a real thing and has been called that for centuries. [16] CNN calls it "dromomania, an uncontrollable psychological urge to wander" [17] Is it in any psychiatry textbooks? Dictionaries include it. [18] Dream Focus 22:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is based entirely off of one book, which is both misleading and WP:FRINGE. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/dromomania says its defined in Medical Dictionary, © 2009 Farlex and Partners. 32 Wikipedia articles reference Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary, but it doesn't have an article. Is it a reliable publication? Dream Focus 22:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its defined also in The American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary[19], referenced in 59 Wikipedia articles, and other medical dictionaries as well. If there is a list somewhere showing what medical dictionaries are considered reliable, and which ones let you search them online, that'd be useful. Dream Focus 23:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And they're all mostly circular (specifically Wikipedia) and based on the fact that this poorly sourced article exists. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not. From when they were written it's possible that they were based on Mad Travelers but not from any Wikipedia article, but older books could just be not as easy to find online because Google book search has less coverage of them, with the exception of 19th century books for which copyright has expired. Peter James (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring specifically to the wikipedia links. Thanks. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is clearly a fringe theory and fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 01:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a sufficiently notable topic historically, but adjust tone to reflect this, and (briefly) distinguish it from (facetious/colloquial) modern usage... or Merge to Wanderlust#Psychology (?) or Fugue state (?). Coverage in American journal of psychiatry (1910), Peculiarities of Behavior co-written by Wilhelm Stekel, Alix Joffroy cowrote a monograph on the topic[20], etc. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on historical usage. I see it mentioned (briefly) here in an article in the American Academy of Pediatrics from 1913 as one cause of runaway children. I can't see the article, but it's actually in the title of this much more recent case. Here is another book reference, "Travelling in Different Skins", which is a lit crit book but mentions some further sources that could be potentially added. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The usage here is a letter submitted by a "T.E.C., Jr., M.D." and not a scientific paper. This is virtually impossible to locate, but I'll see what I can do. Nick (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an important concept in the history of psychology. I am doing extensive research on this topic and will improve the article shortly. Please do not close this discussion until at least 27 July 2018. Daask (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give Daask some more time to improve the article, and to confirm whether evident consensus can change post that...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A brief search yielded numerous mentions in scholarly articles - [21][22][23] and books - [24][25]. The rationale for the AfD is puzzling. The term at the least was used historically, whether it is currently a recognized medical condition is neither here nor there since notability is not limited to only to what is in use currently. Hzh (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject. jonnycraig888 (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The subject ("dromomania" or "vagabond disease") is a mental disorder listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It is not "pseudo-science fringe-theory type nonsense" as denoted in the nomination. A quite strong case could be made for a Merge into "Wanderlust". -The Gnome (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the DSM is it listed? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Condé Nast Traveler, in this article, reports that “dromomania," sometimes called “vagabond neurosis,” was officially added to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as an “impulse-control disorder” and “psychiatric problem” in 2000. Also, I see Dizionario Oxford della medicina listing "dromomania." Real or not, the disorder was used to protect many a deserter in World War I, so characterizing it as "fringe nonsense" misses many points. -The Gnome (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The conde nast article is incorrect as I can find no evidence that it's actually listed in the DSM. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable term, based on sources identified above and in the article, but I would like to see some balance - perhaps criticism of the concept being scientifically accepted as a legitimate medical condition? There's some recent coverage about this criticism in Adventure.com [[26]], although that seems to be kind of like a blog and not as reliable a source as we'd like. It does speak to the popular acceptance of the term though. A simple search using "NY Times" pulls up a review from 1977 [[27]] which mentions the term also, and a 1979 fashion article [[28]], also showing earlier popular acceptance of the term. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Xbox Linux. If somebody really thinks this should be a WP:DAB page, implementing that on your own would be within the scope of normal editorial discretion and WP:BOLD, but for now, I'm just going to leave this as a redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xebian[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find video game sources: "Xebian" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Not notable per WP:NSOFT, neither does this pass WP:GNG as there are no reliable sources that cover it. Note that this article has quite a bit of history dating back to 2006, but looking back at the previous revisions shows that the article was written like a WP:HOWTO without any encyclopedic material before being stubbified in 2011. Update: The article was undeleted 3 months following the previous AfD in December 2011 with the deleting admin explaining this should have been a merge, however no one got around to that and merging such an article, in my view, would be too WP:UNDUE. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Make disambiguation There are two pieces of software by this name, and I think neither pass the GNG or NSOFT. The older is the topic of the prose, a debian-based operating system for the Xbox. But the "official link" at the bottom goes to xebian.org, which is a Debian fork using Xfce. I don't think either is primary. Googling "Xebian", you get a mix of both. I think the disambiguation page should point to the relevant pages which are notable, like Debian and Xbox Linux like so:

Xebian may refer to...

-A fork of the Debian operating system using Xfce

-Ed's Xebian, a Debian-based operating system for Xbox

I don't think there's any reason to delete the page, though I am not opposed to that (most of the content in the history fails WP:NOTMANUAL, and it was a redirect to Xbox for a while, so I don't think we'd miss it). Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: That would not be appropriate per WP:DABMENTION since while it is mentioned on Xbox Linux, which, BTW, needs massive cleanup, it does not have a mention on either Debian or Xfce, so redirecting to the former could be a better option, but I'm not sure if it is even worth mentioning there since it is possibly undue. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Champion: I've thought about your reply for a bit. While I agree this would violate WP:DABMENTION, I think it's best to ignore it in this case. I don't believe deletion is the best solution here. I think redirecting would be good if it were possible, but I don't think either meaning is primary. Given that we can't redirect to two pages at once, I think this is the best way to get readers searching this name to a page related to what they're looking for. The lack of a mention seems, to me, a technicality that would result in a red link useless to readers. The dab will not be the most helpful (for the reasons in WP:DABMENTION) but I think deleting the page instead would be far less helpful than a sub-optimal dab page. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 19:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Search results will work just fine, the first result on the list (excluding this article) is Xbox Linux and it is also mentioned on MythTV, I am still opposed to a dab though, since there is no mention of the project at xebian.org anywhere, a better option would be to redirect to Xbox Linux and place a hatnote about the other distribution, I still favour outright deletion though, as that would be little more than trivial. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Xbox Linux, where it is mentioned by name and would be a suitable target for the search term. (Highly recommend redirecting before coming to AfD whenever reasonable.) czar 17:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 17:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Doctor Who: The Monthly Range#2006. Redirect to the only target article proposed that makes mention of the title. (non-admin closure) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 15:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time Works[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Notability tag has been there for over 5 years. Fails WP:GNG: no RS coverage given whatsoever. There are no inline citations. There are 3 external links: one to a page by the company who made it, one to a fan site with a plot summary, and one to a set of user-submitted reviews on another fan site. Dr Who is obviously very notable, but notability is not inherited. Bondegezou (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see WP:BEFORE, you are supposed to look for extra sources yourself, there are many unreferenced articles that are found to be notable, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with Dr Who and its many spin-offs. I can't see anything RS for this. I doubt very much there is anything. There's been a notability tag for over 5 years. I also trust my fellow editors that if they could have fixed that, they would've by now! Bondegezou (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 07:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 07:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to find reliable source coverage and failed to find anything that would show notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see only some passing mentions/trivial listings in Dr Who related work and some non-notable reviews, therefore fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has independent full reviews such as Audio Reviews and Sci-Fi online, considering the notable subject and notable voice cast there should be more available, thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Audio Reviews link looks like a user-submitted review and not something that would pass RS. The sci-fi-online.com review, while short, does look like it would pass RS. So that's 1 RS article about it. GNG requires multiple sources. Sorry to be unsympathetic, but the claim that "there should be more available" would be more persuasive if the article hadn't been tagged for over 5 years. Bondegezou (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although the discussion is tending towards delete, giving one more re-list to allow Atlantic's sources to be reviewed by more editors...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree about the refs I mentioned above, only one is rs, will look for more later in the week, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid article with notability. jonnycraig888 (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain in what way notability is achieved, preferably with respect to standard notability guidelines? Bondegezou (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm reasonably sure this is from a vandal. See WP:AN#User:Jonnycraig888 -- RoySmith (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only coverage online appears to be fan submitted reviews such as this. It probably got reviewed in Doctor Who Magazine but that is offline and I don't know if it would be considered RS anyway. The article could slso be redirected to List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish or Doctor Who: The Monthly Range.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not familiar with the Doctor Who universe, but might an option be to merge this to Big Finish Productions#Doctor Who? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no content in this article that you would want to add there, so I don't think a merge works, but that could be a redirect target. Bondegezou (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm afraid some of the arguments in this AfD are off the mark. WP:FOOTYN is an essay; it says so in the banner at the top. Regardless of how it's viewed within the football project, such an essay cannot take the place of a more general notability guideline that is created with community input, and as such arguments based on FOOTYN can be given very limited weight. If this an accepted argument for European clubs, then the community should consider elevating FOOTYN to a guideline, but this discussion is not the place for that. No evidence has been presented to show that this club meets any other threshold for notability. Policy-based !votes to delete significantly outnumber those to keep, and thus I can only close this as delete. Vanamonde (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dontan PCCM F.C.[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about an amateur football club. Is probably notable (participated in Thai FA cup) but there are no sources to verify that. I followed WP:NCLUB on this and took it to AFD. » Shadowowl | talk 19:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added references for the FA Cup participation. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - playing in just the qualifying rounds for the national cup is insufficient. No evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:FOOTYN, has only played in the qualifying rounds of a national cup. No indication of wider GNG for this amateur side. Fenix down (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NRV, does not have notability and there's no evidence. Yanjipy (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:FOOTYN by playing in a national cup. There is no mention of qualifying rounds not counting whatsoever. The Thai Cup seemingly draws teams at random with league tier being ignored. Dontan have been unlucky to play in the QR twice while other teams of the same tier have been drawn straight into R1. Bad luck shouldn't be an excuse to delete.Dougal18 (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in the national cup per WP:FOOTYN. Just because it's called a "qualifying round" doesn't mean it's not a part of the national cup (being one of the last four teams in the amateur cup qualifies you for the preliminary round of the national cup.) SportingFlyer talk 04:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SportingFlyer and Dougal18. They have played as per this in the 2018 Thai FA Cup.See little point in deleting it.Further per WP:FOOTYN Only Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria.In this case this club is clearly eligible to play in the Thai FA Cup as is the case as any team from Thai FA Cup: Levels 1 to 5 in the Thai football league system is eligible and this club is in Level 5. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching in Thai, I found zero sources providing in-depth coverage of the subject, thus failing the WP:GNG. WP:FOOTYN is a project-advice essay, not a policy or guideline. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:FOOTYN. There is an interesting discussion above whether qualifying rounds count or not by FOOTYN. The source implies that qualifying rounds suffice. In fact even that it is unneeded. Just qualifying to play without playing in any capacity in the national cup is enough. Rule's first phrase: "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria." (bold in source) This phrase seems to support the position of the delete supporters but remains somewhat ambiguous on qualifying rounds or what happens in other cases. Immediately after comes a second phrase that clarifies what happens in other cases: "Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria." This phrase clearly defines the clubs that are not automatically notable. These are the clubs that were never eligible to compete in the national cup. gidonb (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've invited further input from WT:FOOTBALL here. Giant Snowman 14:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Playing in the qualifying rounds of a national cup is accepted as granting notability for Australian and English clubs, so not sure why it wouldn't ok here; I appreciate there are cups where thousands of teams can enter (like the Coupe de France), but this club has also played at the fourth level in the Thai pyramid, so they wouldn't appear to be non-entities. Number 5 7 14:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clubs that have played in a national cup are considered notable per WP:FOOTYN. This was mentioned recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Ensign F.C. (2nd nomination) regarding English clubs. LTFC 95 (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't believe it is appropriate to read NFOOTY as granting a presumption of notability to every club which enters the qualifying rounds of a national cup competitions (particularly one like the Coupe de France as mentioned above), and a check of online English- and Thai-language sources indicates this club is not the subject of any significant coverage in reliable sources (just mentions of the club in match reports at best). It clearly fails the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as per WP:NRV, which supersedes any requirements laid out in WP:FOOTYN; the lack of verifiable evidence supplants any other discussion regarding this club. Clyde1998 (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think anyone is arguing it's unverifiable. It's clearly a Thai football team which plays in a cup - it's not as if we don't have anything to go on, just that the sourcing is mild at best, such as this article which appears to be a disciplinary proceeding: [29] or its Facebook page, which could be used to flesh out the article even if it doesn't touch notability: [30] or proof it played in the cup: [31] (Note: I am translating these articles through Google Translate.) And a showing of the league it plays in: [32] SportingFlyer talk 02:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SNGs including WP:FOOTYN exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG. An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Several editors above, including myself, do not read this SNG (NFOOTBALL) to include clubs that have only played in qualifying rounds - and accordingly compliance with the GNG ought to be considered (if not decisive). Jogurney (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think there's a very reasonable argument that can be made here that the "qualification round" is actually part of the cup, as teams from the amateur league have to qualify for the "qualification round" through their participation in the amateur leagues, and teams from divisions 2, 3, 4 enter in the qualification round. An analogous cup would be the 2018–19_Croatian_Football_Cup, where I would strongly argue the preliminary round would qualify for notability, since teams only participate in the tournament at all if they win their county cup, even though the top teams don't enter for another round. SportingFlyer talk 03:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All the keep !votes (a) appear to only cite WP:FOOTYN, which is an essay and not an accepted SNG, and (b) fail to provide any evidence that the subject satisfies the WP:GNG, which by default supersedes any SNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned above, if GNG trumps any SNG, what is the point of even having SNGs.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - SNGs are useful for when editors lack the time or expertise to search for and/or identify reliable sources relevant to the subject. For example, if no one here was able to read Thai, citing an SNG (though WP:FOOTYN is not one) might be appropriate, since we wouldn't be able to rule out the possibility of Thai sources covering the subject. However, that is not the case here. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - You seem to have ruled out the possibility of in-depth sources covering the subject from your search - does this exclude the possibility of any local sources that aren't online? There's definitely enough sources available to have an article, even if there's relatively little non-primary significant coverage. SportingFlyer talk 04:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - If there were reliable sources that covered this subject, they would in all likelihood be general or sports news publications, most if not all of which have an online presence, as far as I know. In Thailand, there isn't a news culture that would produce such local coverage, especially for a remote place like Don Tan. Of course, one can't prove a negative, so I can't say that there's zero possibility. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - PS There's TV coverage as mentioned by Lerdsuwa below, though I wouldn't consider it particularly in-depth. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The team's Youtube channel [33] has videos captured from TV programs from SMMTV channel (the channel belong to a publicly traded company [34]). So there are some news coverage for the team. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played in the national cup. As such, is notable. Not sure what the issue is here. Smartyllama (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essays by football invested editors in a walled garden do not trump our notability guidelines. WP:FOOTYN is NOT an SNG, WP:NFOOTY is. There is no SNG for teams, they must pass the GNG; this is clearly stated at Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Teams. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 16:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nom. Not exactly the best reason to delete but it's a valid point Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple independent sources. Unfortunately, even the Thai Wikipedia article is unsourced. Unswayed by those citing essay FOOTYN. Even if we assume a qualifier is part of the national cup, the essay makes an unfounded assumption that every country necessarily has reliable, independent, significant coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm willing to defend the assumption as most national cups generate local coverage. For instance, searching for Dontan PCCM brings up a number of mentions in directory listings of the FA Cup game, a number of youtube videos (including one of the FA Cup match, some of which appear secondary but I don't speak Thai), and even a "Did you know?" facebook post by the other (top division) team (used Google Translate.) Their Facebook feed is really good and I know it's primary, but since it's meant to advertise the club, it looks as if there may be some secondary coverage linked to on the Facebook page, especially 20 September 2016 it looks as if the club may have been profiled on SMM TV. The FA Cup game they were in definitely received some sort of television coverage from youtube. The article easily passes WP:V. I know we're probably a media source or two of significant coverage short at the moment, frustrated by the language barrier, but it's not as if an article about this club can't be written at all. A similar level of coverage exists for many teams playing in their national cup. SportingFlyer talk 10:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless there are sources (probably Thai ones) which provide any method of passing WP:GNG, then this has to be deleted. There is no notability rule that says playing in a national cup infers automatic notability, regardless of what the FOOTYN essay says. Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The national cups include all sorts of teams, even the amateur ones, as the national cups are different from the league by definition, they give more opportunity to lower level teams too. In addition this team has never been participant in the Thai League, which is the only professional team in the list of the Fully professional leagues. Thus, it doesn't satisfy WP:NFOOTY. --1l2l3k (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTY is for players, not clubs. SportingFlyer talk 21:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Notability sports page also mentions teams, where it points toward the GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - and as I've demonstrated above, there's probably sources (especially Thai television sources, which are difficult to find) which make it probable this club passes WP:GNG. I know you've talked about the "walled garden" above, but a team playing in a national cup that fails WP:GNG is an exceptional case. SportingFlyer talk 01:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Israfel[edit]

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

does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has multiple independent coverage and reviews in the article such as Metal Temple, Muzik Etc, Heavy, Rockmusic Raider, and Musicology, passes WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually check the sources? Rock Music Raider is a blog and not RS. The Musicology source is dead, and there doesn't appear to be an archived version available, so I can't check if this passes RS or not. Metal Temple might be reliable, but the author of the piece is not listed among the staff and writers, either past or current, so I have to assume it was a reader who submitted the review and is therefore not acceptable as a source. I guess Muzik Etc. and Heavy are RS, but this isn't really my field, so I'm not sure about the reliability of these sites. Richard3120 (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only reference here that's really doing anything at all in terms of getting the band over GNG is the Heavy review — of the other four, two are blogs, one is a dead link whose former content and ability to be considered a reliable source at all are both completely unverifiable, and the last is a profile of a band member which doesn't say anything more about this band than a glancing namecheck of its existence in an overview of his entire career. This is not enough coverage to make a band "notable just because media coverage exists", if they don't have any strong claim to passing any of NMUSIC's more achievement-oriented notability criteria. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a simple Google search uncovers no additional sources. Fails WP:GNG. I initially thought a merge and redirect to Dominic Cifarelli might work, but that is itself a redirect. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SteatoTest[edit]

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

This was spam from the day it was created here, which was literally with a spam link and nothing else. Since then it has been sourced only to the company's website, and some wikilinks were spammed around WP. I speedied it and Eastmain threw in some shitty primary sources they found to "save" it and removed the speedy tag. Shit stuck on shit is still shit. In fact it is shittier.

The shit sources are:

PMID 16375767 - primary source, and if you read the competing interests section, it says "Thierry is the inventor of both the FT and the ST, is a consultant and has a capital interest in Biopredictive, the company marketing FibroTest-SteatoTest. Mona Munteanu is employee of Biopredictive, the company marketing FibroTest-SteatoTest." The journal in which it was published was discontinued in 2012.
PMID 27549244 - another primary source, again by the company: "TP is the inventor of FibroTest/SteatoTest and the founder of BioPredictive, the company that markets these tests. Patents belong to the French Public Organization Assistance Publique‐Hôpitaux de Paris (APHP). MM, YN, OD are BioPredictive employees. Others co‐authors have no conflict of interest."
Next we have a churnalism ref from a press release about the primary source just above.
Next is PMID 22431959, big shocker, another primary source from Thierry et al.

So delete this now shittier shit. Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found three sources that AFAICT aren't primary in the sense of being by authors affiliated with the test or the company that makes it. They are however primary sources in the sense of not meeting WP:MEDRS, but maybe they can establish notability. The sources are: [35] [36] [37] IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 04:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A publication in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal is a reliable source, despite the conflict of interest. This is a legitimate news story, not a reprint of a press release. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the healio ref is blatant churnalism; zero independent reporting - just PR for the company. here is another website picking up the same press release.Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And independent sources are required for notability. Sources authored by company scientists are not completely independent. This is Notability 101 stuff. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable, secondary sources that discuss this company or technique. Pure spammy BS. Valeince (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of secondary or independant sources, plus the spam nature of this article makes this a delete for me. The closest thing to secondary sources i saw was the kind of sources that IntoThinAir pointed out but they are still primary in nature and as cited in WP:MEDRS Other sources section, falls short of meeting the requirements. JC7V-constructive zone 05:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fatty liver#Diagnosis. The fact that there are published papers in reliable medical journals suggests that this isn't a clean delete, but rather can be added to the Fatty liver article, which is redirected to from Hepatic steatosis. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after striking redirect vote - the independence of the published papers has been called into question. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and the closer should completely disregard Eastmain's argument as having no policy or guideline basis. We require independent sourcing: none of that exists as pointed out by Jytdog. Merging spam also makes no sense, which means it is not a reasonable alternative to deletion, as after we merge it we'd just have to remove it again. Deletion is the only outcome supported by our policies here (i.e. WP:NOT and WP:DEL.) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. and do not merge or redirect. pure promotionalism -- the only refs are exactly the sort of primary sources deprecated by MEDRS. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MBK Rental Living[edit]

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

Non-notable company that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, which special emphasis on the latter. To begin, the company and article lodge no real claims to encyclopedia significance, and a WP:BEFORE check turns up no quality, in depth sources. Coverage that exists is for the most part limited to press releases or announcements of new developments opening, both of which fall under NCORP. It should be noted that some coverage exists around MBK Housing, the parent company of MBK Rental Living, but the subsidiary does not inherit (per WP:NOTINHERITED) notability from its parent company. This is repeatable logic for large companies that have invested in the article subject. In short, the company has not accrued the significant, in-depth coverage need to make a claim to either encyclopedic notability or significance. SamHolt6 (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The company has over a billion dollars in revenue. Just take the number of units produced in California times $800k each. That seems pretty significant. Seems like there is this push for less content on Wikipedia. Seems like there would be a want for more information, not less. The information is factual. We give up. It's 4 on 2 now. 4 super users against 2 new ones. Way to treat new comers. And I think you mentioned ip addresses. We are roomates, so I would think we would have the same ip address. There's no conspiracy here. Just a stupid homework assignment we were given. We've already printed it out and submitted it. You can delete the article and our accounts for that matter. My roomate says he will never donate money to wikipedia again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RenterGuru (talk • contribs) 04:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question. RenterGuru, if this is a homework assignment, what course is it, and from what university? We will need to explain to the instructor about what is necessary for a proper Wikipedia article. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for strong promotional tone. Alexius08 (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can feel some sympathy for the authors of the article if they really have been sent here by an organisation they trust and have a reasonable expectation will assign them only valid work. If so, that organisation has let them down badly. I strongly urge them, per DGG, to identify the organsiation so that it can be given advice on appropriate use of Wikipedia and to protect its future students from suffering the same experience. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is written too much like an advertisement, would have to be scrapped and start again from the beginning to pass standards. MutchyMan112 (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable spam. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe it is written in good faith. I think it is a naked attempt at organic promotion. scope_creep (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this meets our notability guidelines.T v x1 11:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The references appear to be in the nature of press releases, so that they do not establish corporate notability. As per above editors, written promotionally so that not much would be left if the promotional stuff were removed, and the content is not independent anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the student is editing in good faith, is the professor making the assignments in good faith? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Over on WP:COIN several people expressed doubts as to whether there really was a professor at all. Both the authors are now blocked and I doubt that we will ever get any further information to settle that question. If any more such "students" show up promoting property companies in the same area, and telling the same story when challenged, then it might be worth digging further but I hope that all involved have learned their lesson and we won't hear any more of this from them. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Didn't take much effort off wiki to discover this is pure PROMO Lyndaship (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Chambers[edit]

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

No claim of significance per searches but passes CSD, as per prevous nom. Lacks independent in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Obvious WP:COI and WP:NPOV ("the entity we know today as Michael") issues. WP:COIEDIT suggests passing through AfC process, so draftify, declare COI, and submit to AfC when ready. Bakazaka (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources and unlikely to get any. All cited sources are by in-universe fantasy believers, and the article's text reflects this. Who is likely to care enough to write reliable information about a crackpot who pretends to channel a spiritual hive mind through an ouija board?

A related article, The Michael Teachings, suffers from same problems, and has been tagged as lacking sources for ten years. 85.76.65.11 (talk) 07:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basically a personal website on a non-notable person (with a high spam content), whose books aren't notable and whose ideas do not seem to have been picked up by reliable sources. Delete. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the AfD nomination the article creator has made a hundred or so edits, including adding many sources that do not actually discuss the article subject. In current form the article is WP:COATRACK for The Michael Teachings. Bakazaka (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fringe subjects like psychics require high quality sourcing, which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks reliable sources needed to pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing anything reliable and noteworthy beyond the Santa Fe newspaper coverage, so she doesn't meet WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jubal Flagg[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a radio personality, whose claims of notability are not properly sourced. As a host of a syndicated show, he would be eligible for an article if he could be shown to clear WP:GNG, but it's not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts him from having to be sourced properly -- but three of the six references here are his primary source profiles on his own self-published website and those of his employers, while two more are blurby press releases from his employers in which he gives brief soundbite. None of these are reliable sources for the purposes of establishing a person as notable -- and the only reference here that is a reliable source is a local media outlet covering him only in the context of winning that media outlet's own "best local radio personality" poll, which is not an article-clinching notability claim. As always, it's not what an article says that determines its keepability on Wikipedia, but how well it references what it says -- but this isn't referenced properly at all. Bearcat (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable radio personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked for more coverage but couldn't find anything in a reliable source. This is all I could find on him: an opinion piece [[38]] and coverage of a medical emergency in a non-notable source. [[39]] The latter does call him Seattle's number one music station host, but without further coverage there's no way to validate whether that's anymore than just PR puffery. I also Googled the nationally syndicated show that the article says he hosts, and could only find this [[40]] So, he fails WP:GNG.TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Young[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized, but completely unreferenced once I stripped all the WP:ELNO-violating offlinks to ReverbNation from the body text, WP:AUTOBIO of a musician with no particularly strong claim of notability. As always, every musician is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- he has to be the subject of reliable source coverage in media, not the creator of his own public relations sourcing, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't managed to find any reliable sources that show that the article meets WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I struggled to find any sources, and there does not appear to be any significant coverage apart from some trivial announcements - [41][42]. Even his YouTube videos have barely any views. Maybe he will become better known in the future, for for now, he fails WP:MUSICBIO. Hzh (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is definitely not notable enough (at least at the moment) for his own article. MutchyMan112 (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable Buzzy anslem (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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