Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 October	23 October >

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honsbridge International School[edit]

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

Promotional piece not based on secondary sources. I failed to find anything I'd call reliable, but what I did find indicates that this is not a "school" (and it carefully avoids calling itself one on its website) but a "tuition centre", a difference that may well be relevant to the amount of government approval or oversight (see The Star for an explanation of the difference and the surrounding issues). Without any reliable sources we cannot have an article; with reliable sources we'd still have to rewrite the page in its entirety, starting with the title. There's nothing salvageable here. Huon (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we don't usually delete secondary schools amd this is a well established decently sized school. I don't see this page as promotional - it appears factual and plausable. Are you searching for sources in Malay? There is a lot of promo crap on bands and pageant winners that can be targeted for deletion that is a loss less pressing than deleting a school. Legacypac (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "this is a well established decently sized school" - Legacypac, evidence, please? As I said above, it doesn't call itself a school, and I don't think it is one. Regarding "promotional", all without sources:
- "one of the largest private co-educational schools in Malaysia",
- "the only international school in Malaysia that offers the Express / Fast-Track IGCSE Cambridge O-Level education and examinations" (particularly the "examinations" I'd like to see confirmed),
- "Students who opt for this option, can complete their Year 7 to Year 11 in less than 4 years instead of the normal 5 years route",
- "provides an international, British-based curriculum",
- "taught by specialized teachers",
- "The school employs over 80% of local teachers, and 20% expatriates, mostly originating from Britain" (if there are over 80% locals there cannot be 20% expatriates),
- "large teaching staff",
- "Apart from academic excellence, Honsbridge International has a proud sporting tradition",
- "many other sport activities with the school"

If you wanted to write an advertisement for a school (or something that is school-like), how would that sound any different from the above? You're welcome to nominate other articles for deletion that you think don't belong; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Huon (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I seek deletion of pages all the time. I don't seek deletion of schools. This is clearly a school. Legacypac (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed. Here is a source (of dubious reliability) that includes Honsbride International in a list of tuition centres. An older version of their website calls Honsbridge "an independent learning establishment to coach students to score in their Cambridge IGCSE/O level" and promises that "you will have the best possible preparation for your examinations" (but apparently not the examinations themselves). Their current website says they "aspire to provide quality and affordable IGCSE/O levels tuitions". And if all of that is not enough, look at them (as of October 2017). "PUSAT TUISYEN" doesn't mean "school". So unless you have some reliable sources that actually say it's a school, we're not discussing the deletion of a school here, but of a page that falsely calls a tuition centre a school. Huon (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Interestingly, there is a new e-mail at OTRS 2018101510003711, which claims "Wikipedia is the only site that calls this organization a school - They are NOT a school approved by Ministry of Education." I'll suggest they comment here. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this will be easily settled by citing a reliable third party source. Failing that, delete. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any independent published sources. This blogpost says it is one of several "independent learning centres ... These centres tutor children and prepare them for popular examination options ... The academy behaves in many respects just like a typical school". Honsbridge does appear to be very like a school (classes, field trips, sports) but as Huon says, it doesn't call itself one, presumably isn't registered or inspected as one, and there just is no coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a learning center and not a regular school, needs to follow WP:ORGCRIT, which it doesn't. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable educational business of some sort, not really a secondary school OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

F. Burton Howard[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. The 2007 Deseret Morning News Church Almanac source listed in the article presumably provides some coverage, but there's no link to readily assess the depth of coverage. Importantly, multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. Several WP:BEFORE searches are only providing name checks and faint, fleeting minor mentions in independent reliable sources. Other than the almanac source, the remaining sources in the article are primary, and are not usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG lack of independent reliable sources covering the subject in great detail.--DBig Xrayᗙ 20:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable, 3 refs in the article which fail WP:V, google not showing anything better. Szzuk (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red Lion (manhwa)[edit]

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

I found no notability for this and the author doesn't have an article. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing but a plot dump. I can't find evidence of notability, but it's possible that sources aren't plentiful in English. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, created by a spa in 2010 and then forgotten, no refs in the article, google showing little, news nothing. Szzuk (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no references, no evidence of notability. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Facing New York. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Get Hot[edit]

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

There is no charting information, or otherwise significant coverage among several independent reliable sources. The band who recorded the album aren't even notable for a biography article.

WP:NALBUMS states "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography", and that is clearly the case here except there's no article this could be merged to since it isn't even by a notable band. N Ø 17:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the album is independently notable with reviews in reliable sources such as Absolute Punk and the AV Club already referenced in the article which also suggests that the band is in fact notable and should have an article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Absolute Punk link is dead and there appears to be no archive, so this review cannot be verified. Richard3120 (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that leaves the AV Club as the only reliable source available, and its simply impossible to expand this article beyond a stub based on just one source without highly paraphrasing it.--N Ø 00:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In addition to AV Club, here is one more review that I found: [1]. Regardless, I don't think those are enough when the notability of the band itself is suspect. Speedy Delete rule WP:A9 requires both an article for the band and indications that the album is notable, and while there is some minor evidence of notability for this album, the Speedy Delete rule's existence implies that in most cases there should be a band article first. Also the album article is nearly an orphan without a band article to connect it to, and Wikipedia tries to fix orphans too. (See also the article for the band's previous album, which has been PROD'ded.) I propose that any interested person create an article on the band and see if it survives the notability question. Until then, an album article is pointless. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The band's article was deleted in November 2017 due to lack of notability. Nothing has changed since then that would make them notable. I think these two album articles would have been deleted then too but they slipped under the admin's radar.--N Ø 19:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I forgot to check for past attempts at a band article, and you are surely correct that they have not progressed in notability since that last try. Both albums should absolutely be deleted for this reason. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article about the band's other album has been deleted. So now this article is an orphan with no articles linking to it. And it only cites one reliable source. We frankly don't even need a discussion about deleting this, the person who removed my PROD nomination of this article twice and is the only keep vote here is probably a member of or closely linked to the band.--N Ø 23:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep/merge~~. I don't think the band article should have been speedy deleted as an A7, as the tours were enough for some claim of significance, and a Google search finds enough coverage to make the band at least borderline notable. I'm not convinced there's enough coverage to justify an article on this album, but the band article should be revived, improved, and this should be merged there. --Michig (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC) Facing New York now exists, a redirect there seems appropriate. --Michig (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This vote assumes that someone cares enough to create a new and improved article for the band. When/if that happens, there would be a place to merge this album to. Until then, I don't think the album's few reviews are strong enough to overcome its current orphan-hood. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the revived band article can stand on its own, we should simply redirect the album under discussion to there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva Water Hub[edit]

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

Pure promotion of their activities. The references mostly are either from them, or are general treatments of the problems they hope to solve. Material emphasising how important the need is for the work of a charity or foundation is how they raise money, not encyclopedic content. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been significantly modified and shortened to remove promotional material and provide clearer referencing for existing achievements rather than future aims. Further clarity has been given the promotion of their identity as an academic institution rather than the misinterpreted suggestion of charity or foundation --Trennez (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 16:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This appears to be a small project of 4 universities, not a general international producject.The largest section, section 1.1, still talks about general importance of the problem, rather than the organization. The references for the other material are either PR or mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margareth Angelina[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, article reads like a press release. I could only find tabloid sources. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 13:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One member of a large musical group with, apparently, lots of turnover in its ranks. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, plainly fails WP:MUSICBIO. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons cited by PohranicniStraze RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of awards and nominations received by Li Yuchun. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards received by Li Yuchun[edit]

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

Topic much better covered by the article List of awards and nominations received by Li Yuchun Mccapra (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to List of awards and nominations received by Li Yuchun. An unneeded content fork of an already existing article that covers the topic in more detail. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On looking at the article history, it appears that this is actually the older article and the proposed target is the original content fork, so I am striking my vote. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of awards and nominations received by Li Yuchun. More comprehensive article and removes unneeded content fork. Ajf773 (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per others. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lunch Actually[edit]

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

Christina Thung, the author of the current version has requested a face-to-face meeting with me about this so I thought I would let her see a few more people's opinions. It does seem to have a number of independent references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The CSD criteria that it was deleted under applies because the article would need to be entirely rewritten to be an appropriate article. As written, it is a puff piece likely written by someone who will benefit financially from the increased exposure provided by Wikipedia. Natureium (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional piece, notability not established besides general commentary on company. Previous speedy delete criteria still applied. Also, Christina Thung, based on username, likely to be directly employed by Lunch Actually. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still strikes me as A7/G11 material, just as it did in 2016. Cabayi (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ghushmeshwar, Rajasthan[edit]

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

Not a jyotirlinga, actually the 12th jyotirlinga is Grishneshwar, which is in Daulatabad, Maharashtra (1, 2). This is clearly a promotional article created by temple staff to promote the temple and lure the people. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability, clearly an imposter of Grishneshwar [2]. Based on the coverage [3] [4] in the regional newspapers, this temple only merits a mention in Sawai Madhopur district. --DBig Xrayᗙ 16:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, this temple is not a Jyotirlinga.-- Godric ki Kothri^{talk to me} 12:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, Chemicals[edit]

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

Self promotional spam for Non notable initiative. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article has multiple sources but half are ref bombed Fictitious references that do not support the quote they are connected to. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence it is notable, none of the cited references even mention the initiative. Google search turns up a little bit of local news/routine coverage but nothing that constitutes notability. Agricolae (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 21:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find significant coverage in independent sources. The subject does not meet WP:GNG. ChemNerd (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of WP:GNG notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dean M. Davies[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Source searches provide no independent, significant biographical coverage, just quotations from the subject about religious beliefs ([5]), quotations from the subject acting as a spokesperson ([6]) fleeting passing mentions and name checks. Furthermore, the entire article is reliant upon primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my 2014 statement at AFD1 "Weak delete I liken this to a professor with no mentions in the press other than websites from his own university. We need to know that he is considered a ntable person to the general public."-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep there are more than a few references to his actions in this role, though most are fairly minor: [7] [8]. The various primary sources are sufficient to write a short article. I think the role is prominent enough to justify a keep with this coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. power~enwiki's links have given me pause. I am leaning toward weak keep. But not sure yet. Den... (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below is a source analysis of the articles posted by power~enwiki above.

Source	Analysis
[9]	Consists of a name check and then all quotations from the subject, acting as a spokesperson. Being just about all quotations makes this a primary source, which does not establish notability. Furthermore, this article provides just about no biographical information about the subject.
[10]	An article about the subject attending an event and acting as a spokesperson, consisting mostly of quotations, making it primary in nature. This also provides basically no biographical information about the subject, and is just minor routine coverage about an event, rather than the subject.

A subject's role in a religious organization does not create presumed notability, because there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia. What is needed is significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Passing mentions and name checks are not significant coverage, and articles consisting mostly of quotations are primary sources. Furthermore, regarding the notion above of "the various primary sources are sufficient to write a short article", this is entirely backwards, because to qualify for an article, notability per Wikipedia's standards needs to exist, then an article should be created, rather than vice versa. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 16:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Northamerica. Convincing source analysis. Den... (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NA1000. Spam LDS. Refs have been analysed convincingly. Szzuk (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Monkey[edit]

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

does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I remember this show, it was kind of made notable at the time because of Brett Goldin murder. If people feel this article isn't needed maybe a redirect to Brett Goldin's article. Govvy (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 16:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not merit the independent article. Looking at the references, first is a primary one, and the third is not connected to the subject but to Brett Goldin instead (and WP:NOTINHERITED stands so Brett cannot make this notable by his death), none of which establish notability. I have cleaned up the blog reference that was used and IMDB one (not a reliable secondary source). Fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible sources at all. Exploreandwrite (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Of note is that the article was rewritten and significantly expanded (around 27x compared to its state at the time of the deletion nomination), which included the addition of many sources (diff). Some, but not much analysis of the subject's notability relative to the added sources has occurred herein after the rewrite. After two full reslitings, ultimately no consensus for a particular outcome exists at this time in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Spring[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a film director, which literally just states that she exists and then filmographies her films without even attempting to make or source a claim that she passes WP:NCREATIVE for any of them. And all that's present for sourcing here is a deadlinked page on a defunct website whose content is impossible to verify at all, and the IMDb page for one of her films. As always, every filmmaker is not automatically entitled to have an article just because one or more of her films have IMDb entries -- a filmmaker needs to have a credible claim of notability that would pass NCREATIVE, and needs to have reliable source coverage about her to support an article. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I previously nominated for PROD, as the article makes no claim that would justify notability (and isn't borne out by sources). The one potential argument for notability as far as I can see is that the subject reportedly has an entry in a film encyclopedia, although the page is currently broken [11], and its unclear whether this encyclopedia provides sufficient coverage of its entries to justify creating an article here purely on the basis of the existence of the entry. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is information on the filmmaker - [12][13], apparently she is the first female Canadian director to make an English language feature film in Canada, and one of her films won some minor awards. I'd guess that might be what she would be notable for, although I haven't decided yet if that is sufficient. Hzh (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The broken link to Canadian film encyclopedia is archived - [14], there is also something on her work and bio at Library and Archives Canada [15]. Here there are some references to reviews and articles on one of her films - [16], her work is also revisited in this 2002 issue of Take One.Hzh (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably marginal notability, but according to the sources given above, her works have been given serious critical attention (her 1970 work Madeleine Is… received reviews and was still discussed in 2002), therefore she may qualify under WP:CREATIVE. Apart from being the first Canadian woman to make an English feature film in Canada, she was also appointed by the Canadian government to scrutinize "Sex-Role Stereotyping in the Broadcast Media" and set up Media Watch, therefore she may have some significance in Canadian feminist history. With the sources given and those not archived on the internet, she should qualify under WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read the profile from the archived profile from TIFF, but I don't think there's enough there to say she passes WP:GNG. She might be revered among Canadian cinephiles, but I don't believe she meets Wikipedia's guidelines. PK T(alk) 16:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From the sources identified by Hzh and other sources found on Jstor and Google Scholar: The subject of this profile wrote and directed a film which was shown internationally, and is still being discussed 40 years after it was made. She also won awards for a documentary and for a series made for schools. Her work on the task force on Sex-Role Stereotyping in the Broadcast Media is quoted in articles about Canadian policy and also internationally (eg in Australia), and starting Media Watch in Canada is significant. I am not aware of Wikipedia criteria for notability for activists, but I believe that she is notable. The "article" is not even a stub, so deleting it or keeping it hardly matters - I have started adding more information and references, but as it amounts to starting a new article, I have copied this to my sandbox. I'll paste it back here as soon as it has any substance. If someone else works on this article here, I can just add in anything else I have. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Agree with with RebeccaGreen and Hzh. I have expanded the article a nodge resulting in a situation where some of the delete statements above no longer hold water. Spring meets WP:BASIC, WP:FILMMAKER #1 and WP:ANYBIO #2. gidonb (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have written a new article, which I believe substantiates this subject's notability and provides reliable sources. I hope discussion about whether the article should be deleted will now consider this new article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is somewhat better, but you may also need to read up a bit on what we call reference bombing: I'm seeing things like IMDb in the sourcing, which is an absolute no-no at all times, and I'm seeing other primary and unreliable sources, and I'm seeing too many statements upon which you've stacked two or three redundant sources — there are almost no circumstances where any statement in a Wikipedia article actually needs two references for it instead of just one good one, and very definitely zero circumstances where any statement in a Wikipedia article ever needs three references stacked one after the other onto the same statement. When I tried to fix the punctuation errors in the article just now (commas or periods or closing parenthesis go first and then the reference tag, not vice versa), it was literal flaming hell trying to find where the corrected punctuation was supposed to go given all the reference-tetris. Yes, there's some media coverage in the mix now — but there's still too much junk sourcing being used, so it's still not free of problems. Bearcat (talk) 04:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The legitimate references are enough to establish notability, and we are really only interested in establishing whether the subject has enough notability here to warrant an article, which no doubt she has with the sources found. Also references that do not establish notability can nevertheless still be used to support certain facts. If there are other references that aren't good, feel free to remove them, including the content supported by those references, I do think it is too long-winded and could do with trimming anyway. Hzh (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bearcat, for the information about where the references should be placed in relation to commas and parentheses. I was aware that they are placed after periods - I thought I had seen them placed before commas. I would have been happy to correct their placement myself, if I had been given that feedback. As for the number of sources - I have observed in articles rated 'good article' (GA) that there are often two references for one piece of information, and sometimes more - three is not uncommon, and I have seen as many as eight. So it appears that other Wikipedia editors take a different view of multiple sources. As Hzh said, I hoped that there were enough of what Wikipedia considers legitimate references to establish notability, and the other references provide evidence of particular information. I note that you are in Canada, and I would appreciate your advice on which newspapers are considered reliable there. I have the impression that some papers published in a particular town are actually distributed nationally, and are regarded as having serious journalism, much as in Australia with the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age in Melbourne - but as I am not familiar with Canada, I am unsure which are not credible sources. The IMDB reference was in the original article as an external source, where I gather that it is acceptable - I changed it to a reference in the Madeleine Is .... section, as the personal entry on IMDB did not seem to me at all useful as a source for the subject of the article, whereas the entry for the film does provide more information (eg about the film crew). If/when the subject's notability is considered established, others will no doubt edit the article, perhaps adding information and sources not available to me, perhaps deleting some. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) funplussmart (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hauck[edit]

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

I can't find any actual coverage of this Hauck and I'm having trouble verifying his credits outside of IMDB due to the common name but I'm still not seeing anything about any Adam Hauck that equates to significant in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied as A7 - no claim of notability, no references. Deb (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Athena Brensberger[edit]

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

This seems like it possibly could be WP:TOOSOON but in any case I'm not seeing the necessary coverage required to meet any of the N criteria and I'm not sure what "Athena was in 7th position in Maxim Cover Girl 2018 contest from West Coast." means but I can find nothing to support such claims. Praxidicae (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Actually its West Group Twenty Four. The link is below

https://maximcovergirl.com/2018/athena-brensberger
Athena is an international model and science communicator and works for NASA Socials.--Insaafbarua (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument to avoid at deletion - a member of NASA Social isn't inherently notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. Widefox; talk 09:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1. agree with nom appears WP:TOOSOON with primary and/or non-indi sources, so fails WP:GNG due to lack of sources which for a WP:BLP especially isn't acceptable. 2. I question if this is also promotion. Clear deletion due to both. Widefox; talk 09:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even sure what the notability claim is here, but no sources to support WP:GNG for that matter

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. WP:A7/WP:G11 by Sjb72. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evertiq[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. No significant coverage to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evertiq has been publishing news for the electronics industry for the past 18 years. Several Wikipedia articles are referring to Evertiq. It's prudent that it has it's own Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrik Bjorsell (talk • contribs) 07:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Henrik Bjorsell (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Delete I don't think there's any coverage besides the ones from Evertiq. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7 / G11 (why are even having this discussion)? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:A7 and WP:G11 per K.e.coffman. No independent sources, article written by/deletion contested by the company owner with an undeclared conflict of interest. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Next Eleven[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Unlike Group of Seven or BRICS which are widely known and an actual existing club of countries, Next Eleven is only a hypothetical list of countries proposed by Goldman Sachs' Jim O'Neill (economist) who has a penchant for such acronyms like BRIC, MIST, MINT [17]. The coverage is only in Goldman Sachs papers or articles from its employees. O'Neil abandoned and replaced this list with another list called MIKT in 2011 and then again with MINT in 2014. the Authors bio already has this section Jim O'Neill#Next Eleven. DBig Xrayᗙ 19:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 19:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think your concerns are valid, but I think there's enough study of the group that it passes GNG. In particular there are several academic papers and reports which study characteristics of the economies as a group: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. I agree O'Neill could probably stand to cool it with all the new country groups, but this one seems to have gotten enough traction to keep. If it isn't a keep, it should redirect to O'Neill. MarginalCost (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These papers you quoted although analyzes the economic parameters but none of them explain why this is notable, neither is this term widely cited in academia. The link [2] mentioned above for example only analyzes agrifood reports its findings as "BRICs and N-11 do not differ from other low, middle, or high income countries with respect to their import behaviour.", link [3], [4] and [5] analyzes the energy consumption, and [6] analyzed health spending. Such analysis are quite common and does not credit notability to the subject. Basically WP:SIGCOV is still lacking.

I am ok with your suggestion of redirect to Jim O'Neil as a search term. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I just see it differently, and would say multiple academics have decided to study the article subject, and they have analyzed the characteristics of the group and evaluated how it compared to other classifications of emerging economies. You're right that they don't talk too much about the term itself and its history, development or etymology (though there is some coverage), but a) most of our articles don't do that, and b) the original objection was that it was all self-promotional and self-reference. WP:SIGCOV is an odd objection to raise when these are pretty in-depth studies focusing mostly or entirely on the article subject.

I'm fine if consensus lands elsewhere, but in my mind these studies more than constitute significant coverage. MarginalCost (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - to me this is notable because it turned out not to be accurate. As such, it is an important article related to the history of economics. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 19:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such precedent to keep inaccurate hypothetical lists. And there is no indication why it is important. --DBig Xrayᗙ 22:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Jim O'Neill, Baron O'Neill of Gatley#Next Eleven. A hypothetical group that lack in/depth significant coverage as a group. Given the fact that the group is about 11 nations, it is bound have a little attention in RS. But in the current state, it is not enough to assert the firm notability. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect As said above. The coverage is really insignificant in terms of WP:GNG. Excelse (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jim O'Neill, Baron O'Neill of Gatley#Next Eleven—seems like a good alternative to deletion, given there is little or no in-depth coverage available and we have a sub-section at O'Neill's article devoted to this so-called group, covering the entire prose of the article. Bharatiya 29 13:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect: A non-notable term by a single researcher. Should be deleted or probably be redirected to the researcher's page. Gotitbro (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - going with the academic sources found by MarginalCost, the topic passes WP:GNG quite easily as an economic grouping. The sources suggest 'Next 11' as a group is being studied by various scholars independent of Goldman Sachs and more importantly, covering different fields like agriculture, energy, environment and not just limiting to investment analysis as Jim O'Neill initially did to coin the term. There must be more such sources in other languages as well if someone digs in. As a terminology too, Next 11 has an entry on Investopedia, an educational website on finance and investment, which suggests the term could be encyclopedic. The article though needs to be worked on as it looks like a poorly written list at present. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained why these sources presented by MarginalCost fail notability.
The author of the hypothetical list Next 11 was a Goldman Sachs employee, any literature from Goldman Sachs will be considered Self Published in this case.
WP:LOTSOFSOURCES must be existing isn't a valid argument. English is used in most of these 11 countries, so language is not a concern.
Investopedia and other encyclopaedias are not a reliable source for defining notability. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: As an analogy, if there was debate over an article on, say, bees, and there were multiple academic studies on the reproductive habits and aerodynamics of bees, would you say those articles couldn't count for establishing the notability of bees, only for showing the notability of aerodynamics and reproduction? If not, then how are in-depth academic articles studying characteristics of N-11 any different? I'm open to being wrong here, and of course I'm with you that Investopedia isn't a reliable source, but if this topic has been the subject of serious academic study it deserves inclusion. I agree with you that it is not "widely cited in academia," but the threshold for GNG is not widespread use, but multiple independent reliable sources, which this has. MarginalCost (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MarginalCost The bees comparison is clearly not applicable here. The crux of your argument above is since these academic papers exist that are in part related to the subject they are notable by default. Or in other words you are claiming existence of academic paper is enough for notability. This is not correct, it only confirms WP:V (verification). There are numerous journals out there and all of them do not pass our notability criteria. Their existence may merit an entry into an existing article as a section (such as this case where the authors Bio is being suggested by AfD contributors.) The notability bar for having a standalone article is higher. If such a group is notable you will find extensive coverage in newspapers, Media, books etc. Take examples of BRIC, G7, G20. they are clearly notable and finding reliable source for them is never a struggle. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Jim O'Neill, Baron O'Neill of Gatley. One of his another idea that has not yet received significant coverage. desmay (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ferry Tayle[edit]

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

Non-notable artist, not much coverage online. aNode (discuss) 13:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 16:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Ayala[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Several WP:BEFORE searches are only providing name checks in independent, reliable sources. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, none of which are usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched but could not find independent and secondary sources to verify notability. If somebody else could find references of distinction for Ayala outside of LDS' publications, we should consider keeping this entry. Otherwise, it does not belong here (similar arguments here). Den... (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Must be popular but there is lack coverage by independent reliable sources. desmay (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vipin mekkail[edit]

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

Non-notable "director" with very loose claims which are unsupported by an RS or in depth coverage. Fails GNG and just about every N criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, nearly CSD territory from this SPA (now blocked) user that created it. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matata Corporation UK Limited[edit]

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

Pure WP:ARTSPAM of a company that is "closely tied" to another company with no real in depth coverage and a ton of spammy PR garbage. Praxidicae (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatantly promotional. I wouldn't think twice. Deb (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 22:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shameel J[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, no sources and no evidence that his "award" is significant or credible. Add to that it's been deleted in the past under other names and the creator has never been able to provide a single source which would support it's inclusion or credibility. If anyone would like to comment or explain what here negates an A7, I'll gladly also rescind my AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per my decline of your A7 tag, WP:A7 doesn't mean "unsourced"; per the WP:PROD I added when I declined the speedy, Speedy deletion declined, proposed for deletion instead which will give the creator a week to find some reliable sources, otherwise it will be deleted, but since you've for some reason removed the {{prod}} template, wasting everyone's time here at AfD for a week will have the same effect. Tag-bombing a new editor's first article with an A7 template within an hour of its creation is atrocious behaviour. ‑ Iridescent 17:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does require significance and credibility. And they've created it before and couldn't source it, now is no different. There's nothing atrocious about tagging a7 an hour later and there's nothing that prohibits it. Why not move it to draft if you wanted to give them time and you thought it had a chance of passing the low bar of A7 or AFD? Praxidicae (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree, it's a massive waste of time to spend at AFD on this but I actually AFD'd it before you prodded it and restored my AFD which you removed as PROD is a waste of time since it almost certainly would have been removed for some absurd reason and then we'd have to go another 7 days with unsourced/poorly sourced non-notable BLPs sitting in main space. There was no tag bombing, my single edit was to A7 it, rightfully. And this is far from their first article with 37 out of 46 of their cotnributions deleted. Praxidicae (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced BLP - no evidence that the subject complies with WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Google search only returns hits on social media websites and IMDb - none of which are acceptable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to show notability, and searches don't show anything better. JC7V-talk 20:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Schettler[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. This source listed in the article provides some information, but multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one.

The second listed source in the article is from the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History, which is a primary source, because it is published by the Deseret Book Company, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is wholly owned by the LDS Church. Primary sources such as these do not serve to establish notability.

Assorted WP:BEFORE searches have turned up little other than name checks, which is not significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant reliable source coverage to establish notability under WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have two sources, the biogrpahical encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History that are indepdent of the subject, especially considering the second was published nearly a century after his death. Beyond that the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saints history was written and edited by respected academics, and to exclude it as a source purely based on its publisher makes no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – a book published by a publisher that is owned by an LDS-related holding company, the latter of which is wholly owned by the LDS Church equates to a primary source, in my opinion. It's also important to keep WP:SPIP in mind, some of which is listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN. Spam. Szzuk (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 14:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Fails WP:NFILM. The Forbes review is contributed, the LA Times review is a capsule review, and the others aren't by nationally known film critics. wumbolo ^^^ 16:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. XOR'easter (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:GNG. Google search of "Gosnell Movie" indicates topic meets GNG, with extensive coverage in Washington Post [23], The Hill [24], Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [25], The Guardian [26] etc, etc. DynaGirl (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: added those two sources to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPSchneiderLC (talk • contribs)

Keep, as per newspaper coverage already noted. Each would have to be shown to be trivial or "capsule" to justify deletion; that burden is not met. FChE (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no good reason why the article shouldn't exist. Dogman15 (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article covers a movie that clearly exists and provides information that we would find on any other page for any other real life movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.233.41.146 (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC) — 80.233.41.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Adding to @dynagirl's argument: NBC, and the Washington Times have covered it aswell. NBC [27]]Washington Times [[28]] Cobraman202 (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as, in addition to the arguments proposed above, the film also meets the criteria of Notability. It refers to a real-life event that has been covered in established news sources. Furthermore, the film itself has also proven the subject of news reporting. Perhaps this should lead to more such citations needed to that effect, but lack of such citations should hardly warrant deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RushLimborg (talk • contribs) 23:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historically, this film is one of the highest grossing crowd-funded projects to date. The only reason to delete this entry is purely political, and Wikipedia shouldn't pull entries because of a political agenda. That's bad for everyone--especially Wikipedia if they want to be a neutral site for the dissemination of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.170.178 (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC) — 74.196.170.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. 1. This article includes references from multiple unquestionable reliable sources and since most are articles on the film, not mere mentions that indicate notability. SOme unquestionably notable reliable sources Fortune, NBC News, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Times, The New York Post, Slate, a local NBC affiliate, The Washington Examiner, The Wall Street Journal, and The Seattle Times. Other sources: TownHall.com, The Hollywood Reporter, National Review, Deadline, CinemaBlend, Law360, and Daily Wire. 2. If you compare it to other entries in , which is the category it is part of, it has far more reliable sources and notability than most (I just compared a few at random). 3. The movie maker's choice to do no pre-screenings for critics noted in the article may be a reason for the lack of large critiques but it alone isn't enough to delete it. 4. The film had a clear political or policy slant that many disagree with, but Wikipedia is not for moderating such points. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 01:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - per WP:NFP, notability is shown by media coverage. In addition to WSJ, Forbes, the LA Times and the Hollywood Reporter, and other sources listed above, there's also Philadelphia Inquirer coverage. [[29]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The movie is real, in cinemas, and will be a DVD. The transcript is based on the Facts of a Court Case which really happened and from which a conviction resulted. Anybody can verify this in the official Records. There's no reason to delete this article from Wikipedia. People searching for information will need it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelticUser (talk • contribs) 06:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC) — CelticUser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Canvassing here. wumbolo ^^^ 07:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- That was not intended as canvassing. I read policies on speedy keep and was uncertain if they applied here so wanted editors with more experience to weigh in. I have not dealt with speedy keep before and after reading policies I was not sure if they applied to this case. I mentioned the list of sources as the main question was whether such sources were sufficient for speedy keep. Apologies if this was misinterpreted. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per all the arguments above, particularly Tim Templeton's. A publicly released movie featuring a famous actor (Dean Cain) that was reviewed in major newspapers (L.A. Times, WSJ) is so obviously notable that it's hard to imagine any argument for deletion. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 10:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't reviewed in the WSJ. wumbolo ^^^ 11:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google search of "Gosnell Movie & WSJ" turns up this: [30] DynaGirl (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, WP:N and WP:NFILM. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus here is clearly delete, but I'd just like to note a few things:

Declining the A7 tag does indeed seem appropriate
Comments at AfD should be on-topic and if directed at fellow editors should only be if relevant to potential issues with the article under discussion.
Sexual jokes need never be made, but if you feel you really, really must, please take it to a user talk page.

~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey Lenzie[edit]

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

Non notable author with an utterly non-notable prize, akin to that of a high school talent show. No coverage or meaningful reviews (that I can find.) And I'm not sure how winning a random prize that no one has ever heard of is significant or meaningful, but here we are. Praxidicae (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A7 only requires a credible claim of significance. That's present with the claim of winning an award. If you want to argue that the award is not notable, that's what this discussion is for, not a speedy deletion nomination. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winning any old prize or award is not significant and if that's enough to negate an A7 then it should be gotten rid of altogether. Shall I create an article about myself and the International Thespian of The Year award I won in high school so we can force it into an AFD on the basis that I won an award therefor it's significant? Praxidicae (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The prize is likely significant to someone. A7 is for pages like "John Public is a musician. He created a band in his garage.", not for pages that make a "claim" of significance. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The prize is likely significant to someone. That's nice - winning first place in a state fair for best apple pie is significant to someone too. Doesn't mean it's significant in the context of Wikipedia. Let's use some common sense here. Praxidicae (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)If you won an international award, and it was covered significantly in reliable sources, that might indeed merit you an article if the award was truly international and significant. But those would be issues for a discussion, not a speedy deletion where the criteria must be clear and indisputable. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the issue with your argument that it's significant - it's not covered in independent reliable sources (in this deletion discussion.) It's literally "x won x award" that has no significance anywhere and no independent coverage. Saying that it's significant to someone is ridiculous. Praxidicae (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But obviously this is going off topic, if you want to debate the merits of what A7 significant and credible actually mean to your average editor, perhaps an start RFC because calling any award that's mentioned significant and credible is just defying any common sense. Praxidicae (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get another administrator to agree with you, then feel free and I give you my best wishes. But I saw an A7 and made an interpretation based on what I saw. I don't speak for them but I assume Ritchie333 did the same thing. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not an CSD A7, because at least we need to work out what the Plaza Literary Prize is, why we don't have an article on it, see if we could write one and then redirect Abbey Lenzie there. That's pretty much my thought process. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put a lid on this Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

30 seconds of research would tell you why we don't have an article on it. For the same reason we don't have an article on Bobby Jo and her fair-winning-first-prize apple pie. Praxidicae (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would have only have been the case if a Google search returned no hits whatsoever (in which case it may have been a candidate for CSD G3 - vandalism). Why are you in such a hurry to delete things? Chill out, visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red and write something. And a typical research time for an article is 30 minutes (sometimes 30 days), in the case of getting something like Bootleg recording to GA, it was 30 weeks. Slow down and take a breath. Have you tried asking the article creator? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd stop telling me to chill out when I'm being perfectly calm and rational and having a conversation and also stop demanding that I go do other things when I'm perfectly content (and not otherwise disruptive) doing what I'm already doing. Stop attributing emotions and feelings to me that simply do not exist. It doesn't take 30 days to determine that something like this is just simply not notable, but please tell me more about how great your contributions are. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you can find them here, here and here. Now, in the words of The Rambling Man, don't forget to smile! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't bring that up again, we don't need any more WP:DIVA moments. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see why me fellow administrators are mistaken, but from doing a modest amount of research, I can see that Abbey Lenzie isn't notable, the Plaza Literary Prize isn't notable and the awarding 'organisation' (in reality, a fucking coffee store cum bookstore) sure as hell ain't notable. It's a great pity we need to go through this process, but hey ho, it's not as if there's much better things to do, is there. Nick (talk) 5:14 pm, Today (UTC+1)

A "fucking coffee store cum bookstore" - mixing coffee, fucking and cum? - sounds like the sort of thing you might find in De Wallen, Amsterdam, though I personally prefer to drink coffee fully clothed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A wise decision when I see that coffee cup on your user page... Nick (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete, this author is not yet notable, and nor is that award. Practically no information on Lenzie is available. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An insignificant local award by a bookstore/gallery. An author with no works listed on amazon. There is no sense arguing at AfD whether or not a speedy is correct, --once it has been challenged, the discussion should be here and should be about the article not the process. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I am the new pages patroller who originally requested the the article for deletion under the A7 criterion for speedy deletion after doing a fair-bit of research on both the subject and the prize she has won, but, my request was declined by 331dot and whilst I see his reasoning, I don't think Lenzie is notable enough to warrant a separate Wikipedia entry on her. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 00:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had a look around but can't find any way of salvaging this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, not sure what all the fuss is about at the beginning of this afd, isnt it correct that a speedy delete can be removed by any editor as long as its not the creator? with a reason (i see a reason was given - "won a prize" which seems to come under no. 5 of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria), it can then come to afd; btw this is a Delete, as not meeting WP:ANYBIO or WP:NAUTHOR, the book's award in the article is not significant, multiple reviews have not been made. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Siyi. How much to merge is left to editorial discretion. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Taishan Region[edit]

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

nominator's rationale WP:original research. There is Taishan, Guangdong, a modern administrative area (a city), or Sunning (old name of Taishan), an administrative area in Qing dynasty. As well as Siyi, a notable area of 4 cities (or called Wu Yi, which Si mean 4, Wu mean 5) and Siyi Yue, a local dialect of Yue Chinese . However, introducing a new original research concept "Greater Taishan Region" is not allowed in wikipedia. Even if it exist, i don't find any reliable source in Chinese or in English. Matthew hk (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Siyi. From the opening sentence: The Greater Taishan Region ... is another term used to refer the Sze Yap Region, where "Sze Yap" redirects to "Siyi". Most of the content is duplicated in that article. The information in the list of notable people is duplicated the articles for individual counties in Guangdong, but we can move the list to the Siyi article if it's ethnically sensitive. If we can find a source for the term "Greater Taishan Region" or "台山地区" it may warrant a single mention in the Siyi article. Delete as second choice. Snuge purveyor (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Siyi - content fork and original research. -Zanhe (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the list of name, it is unsourced and some of them may be living. Which unsourced BLP content may be remove entirely. I knew there is some book (and PhD thesis that became published book in low circulation) on researching place of origin and their success in Hong Kong, but the current state of the list was a typical WP:listcraft (a wiki thesis not a guide), unsourced, lack of exact inclusion and exclusion criteria, etc. If people want to find people from foo, they can just look for Category:People from Taishan (and the cat is a Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy material for C2D reason). Matthew hk (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge / redirect. They seem to cover the same content and be about the same size, so it’s unclear how much of any needs to be merged.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy procedural close per WP:BMB; nominator is a banned sockpuppeteer. If an editor in good standing has a good-faith reason to discuss deletion of this article, please re-nominate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanuj Mahashabde[edit]

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

Fails WP:Nactor. One role in TV series, last AFD was held with the same reason and the result was Delete. Iqra Dude (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and previous deletion review consensus. Fails to meet WP:NACTOR. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cost report[edit]

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

Stub created in 2007 as a WP:DICTDEF. Tagged as unreferenced since 2007. Attracted some link spam in in 2016 as part of a walled garden campaign to promote what's now Draft:Medicare cost report and tagged for ref improvement since then. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; an unsourced DICTDEF and the specific usage for film production isn't notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Srishti Publishers[edit]

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

Fails as per WP:NCORP. Notability would not be inherited by mentioning subjects with Wikipedia articles. Dial911 (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: If a publisher publishes multiple best-selling works[31][32][33], then that's really not inherited notability, but a function of the core activity of that business, and ORGSIG applies. Visible online in-depth coverage is woeful (are there RS Indian publishing trade press sources?), but it's at minimum NOTEWORTHY as the most prolific publisher of low-end books[34] which is credited as having been primarily responsible for launching the Indian mass-market fiction boom.[35][36] (yes, they're both interviews, but Hachette is independent of Srishti, and questions asked in an interview in an RS can be treated as factual). Since its inclusion is a necessary part of the modern history of book publishing in India, it should at most be encapsulated and redirected there, but if that's to be done it probably requires a more comprehensive/balanced expansion of that target. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The new and improved CORP policy has way too high standards. This publishing house is nowhere near it. Wikipedia needs reliable sources for any company to have its standalone article. Mere publishing bestselling books doesn’t grant it an entry to the encyclopedia. Those bestselling books shall have an article here not the publishing house. Having an article just because it produced some bestselling books is a perfect example of inherited notability. Dial911 (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis Word Processor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A shareware word processor written by a small group of people not a company of any significance, with no indication of actual significance. I can't find any evidence it's considered important, or ever was. Almost entirely the work of user: Marius2~enwiki, who has never edited on any other topic, and maintained by others with a similarly narrow focus. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep The three reviews in the article aren't lengthy, a few paragraphs each, but are certainly reviews in reliable, independent sources. Not sure if [37] is fully indpendent (or really all that in depth) but it is long. I think WP:N is met with the three reviews in the article, but the other one shows there is more out there too. Hobit (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per User:Hobit. Modernponderer (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per the additional sources User:Gillian2008 provided below. Modernponderer (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not overly impressed by the reviews, these seem to be software download sites who'll list everything submitted to them and give a brief review of a good many of them, i.e. these aren't really much better than a directory listing. Are there any better out there? --81.108.53.238 (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. A handful of reviews from nine years ago do not establish significance. Mackensen (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N is exactly an assertion of notability. This has been reviewed by multiple reliable sources. The fact they are nine years old really doesn't matter (notability isn't temporary). Hobit (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - You show me a software product that had a handful of reviews nine years ago and nothing written about it since, and those reviews serve to say "it exists, try it", I'll tell you that it wasn't notable then and isn't notable now. None of the reviews constitute in-depth or significant coverage. That a perfunctory AfD from nine years ago got it wrong doesn't change that. Mackensen (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep the reviews are quite short and it's impossible to tell whether they've gone through any sort of editorial review, especially the CNet ones. I'm willing to give a benefit of the doubt to the PC World one, but it's not enough. I also saw the telenet post and it doesn't appear to be a reliable source for notability reasons - just a personal blog. As it stands, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 02:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC) EDIT: the new sources get this past WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 20:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you referring to the teleread.org source I linked to? It certainly appears to be a reliable source. The article had been previously published as a blog post, but I don't think that's an issue. If the NYT republishes someone's blog post, it's still a NYT article, yes? Hobit (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I found Teleread independently (and then got its name wrong). I didn't even notice it was originally from someone else's blog, but I don't think Teleread is a reliable source for notability purposes - it's a WP:BLOG that openly welcomes contributors. The Cnet review, PC World review, and Tucows review all say "download this now!" as part of their downloads section and not as part of their reviews section, which really concerns me from a WP:RS point of view - I'd certainly be more impressed with a review in the actual PC World magazine. SportingFlyer talk 10:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd not characterize that as a blog [38] as it certainly appears to have editorial control even if the workforce is all unpaid. Hobit (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's still self-published, which can't be used for notability per Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works. The fact it was reprinted what appears to be verbatim from something clearly self-published here [39] doesn't qualify that source, in my opinion. SportingFlyer talk 13:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to disagree on that per my NYT comment above. Hobit (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your example above seems rather naive. If the NYT reproduces someones blog verbatim and puts a disclaimer on it saying they haven't checked it and bear no responsibility for the content, would you contend it's still an NYT article and so we should treat it in the same way as other NYT articles? Not that is the exact case here, but surely the point is you respect NYT articles because of the trust you put in their checking etc. if the NYT stopped that and just started reproducing user submissions etc. it may still be an NYT article, but you'd probably stop respecting the quality of them. In this case the publishing guidelines contemporary to when that article was published do suggest some level of editing of submitted content, but seem primarily interested in writing style etc. this probably brings at least a reasonable question as to how reliable it is as a source overall. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the NYT does this all the time. OpEds are exactly this. So are newswire articles. We assume the Times used their editorial judgement in selecting those articles. Same with "selections from a book" which also commonly appear in the NYT (and WSJ, etc.). That something was published elsewhere first doesn't take away from it being published in the NYT. Hobit (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the time (probably now too), Teleread was a self-published blog which accepted contributions from other self-publishers. I have no problem keeping the source in the article but you cannot use it to demonstrate notability, sorry. SportingFlyer talk 21:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the NYT publish other peoples stuff with no checking and bearing no responsibility for content, then the fact that it appears in the NYT should mean absolutely nothing to us, we should look to the originator for their reputation for fact checking etc. It's the very fact that we believe NYT do some checking and do stand by the content which is what gives them a good reputation and makes us value them as a source. The contrast here is not the NYT it's a blog whose controls at the time are indicated by them to be they checked the articles not for content (beyond being in the field they were interested in), but for writing style. That's not a good standard to use. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing I'm missing something. This website appears to have both a long history and fairly large editorial group. Do they disclaim responsibility for their contributors somewhere? From what I can tell it appears to have editorial control. Hobit (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's relevant to list this article's recent appearance at Deletion Review here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_October_13. - tucoxn\^talk 15:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete We have never decided whether "review" means full-scale review, or the sort of brief notices that are used here. This has been a question in multiple fields. (TheEPUB one isn't even a brief notice--it's a mere listing by any standard). There is probably no commercial word processing program at all that has not gotten reviews to the extent of the present ones. The question is not editorial control, but rather the publication's decision to be indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (mainly to JzG) Most software products are developed by "small groups of people". There are even many popular products developed by individuals (Sigil, Calibre, Notepad++). The English WP includes articles about almost 100 word processors. Many of them have less reviews than Atlantis Word Processor. Some of them don't have a single review. Many of them include links to non-English reviews. In general, you will hardly find in-depth reviews for non-top-end software. So what do you expect from the Atlantis Word Processor article? To me, this is a selective judgment and lack of consistency in applying the deletion criteria. I've just spent 5 minutes on Googling to find more reviews and notable articles on Atlantis Word Processor: [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]. I would find more if I searched the Web Archive. There are also non-English reviews: [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] Gillian2008 (talk) 07:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I can understand people thinking the references are too slight to support an article or that the text is (or at least used to be) tainted by conflict of interest. In my view the reviews meet the GNG criteria because they are sufficient in number, detail and independence. However, meeting the criteria only "creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article" and so adopting more stringent requirements is perfectly allowable to keep our contents reduced to manageable amounts. However, in this case I think the article is an overall asset and the guidelines as written support such an assessment. Thincat (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A handful of reviews at time of issue and nothing since? Surely if this software was in any way notable it would have attracted subsequent attention.TheLongTone (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of reviews on the Web. Please see my comment above. Gillian2008 (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, I have added 6 new review links to the article, but JzG removed them all. Gillian2008 (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Gillian2008, please post any additional sources you find here so the community can evaluate them. It seems rather pointless to spend time and effort editing an article that may well end up deleted within days, whether citations are being removed or not. Modernponderer (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, I will. At this point, the article includes links to 5 reviews. There are 12 more in my comment above ([52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]). I'm adding another 6: [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]. So, 20+ reviews in total. I wonder how much is enough for notability? Gillian2008 (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To a certain extent that's what we're figuring out. As a closing reviewer (I relisted because there's no current consensus, but it seems reasonably probable that consensus can be achieved) I would consider the following: On one hand NOTABILITY IS NOT TEMPORARY so it doesn't matter if all the reviews are old, but on the other hand if it only received reviews immediately after release, perhaps ONE EVENT may come into play. Getting a roomful of wikipedia editors to agree on what constitutes depth of coverage can an entertaining proposition. Obviously the more you can provide the better, but adding a number of passing mentions isn't going to help your position. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:78.26, one would really hope your link to WP:1E was just an oversight on your part, as otherwise it would call similarly contentious closes into question. The full and "correct" link is WP:BIO1E – as the "one event" criterion only applies to people. See also: WP:ONLYBECAUSEITHAPPENED Modernponderer (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, and thank you for the prescient clarification. Yes, WP:BIO1E only applies to people on a strict basis, but when determining notability the principle can apply when considering whether this is worthy of encyclopedic attention. I'm failing to see the applicability of WP:ONLYBECAUSEITHAPPENED, because we are indeed talking about the "actions" of sources, not their inaction. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:78.26, this software is developed since 2000. So it's normal that some of those reviews are "old". But there are "new" reviews and articles as well: 2018 (2), 2016 (1), 2015 (5), 2014 (2), 2012 (1), 2010 (1), 2009 (4), 2008 (3), 2007 (2), 2005 (1) – see my links above. Gillian2008 (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The latest article is by ZDNet [70] (Oct 2018). If the software was unimportant for the industry, Cisco wouldn't invest time in reverse engineering it. Gillian2008 (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that latest coverage is pretty in-depth. Not positive, but in-depth. Well over WP:N now IMO. Hobit (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most the links above don't sell me, but the Softpedia review from 2005 and the 2018 ZDNet article show the program is not some flash in the pan (or a never-flash). I cant analyze the foreign language reviews for reliability, but it does seem to be geographically widespread. Passes GNG in any case. Some reviews should be better noted in the article, showing program strength and weaknesses, currently it appears spammy because the article just says "here's this product and here's what it does". 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Another fresh review (Oct 26, 2018): [71]. Gillian2008 (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Mbaka[edit]

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

Initially this biography was only sourced to subject's own web page. I have added a few references to sources, but I do not find the coverage needed to build an article from scratch. As it currently stands it fails [[WP:BASIC]]/[[WP:GNG]]. Sam Sailor 16:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 16:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 16:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Lo Fibre Companion[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Deb (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with that; indeed I would have redirected it as a first option. However in this case I was not sure of the appropriate target. The editor who created this is making other article on (to my mind) nn recordings by this artiste, & revering conversions to redirects. So it would probably have ended up here....TheLongTone (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When a voter says "redirect" she should say WHERE to redirect to. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see your point, LongTone. The redirect (to the artist, as is normal in these cases) could be protected to prevent further reversion, but that options not open to you so delete is absolutely acceptable to me. Deb (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a various-artists compilation, logically the album could be redirected to the label's article, but no such article exists despite its notable founderJustin Broadrick. Whether or not the label is notable is a separate discussion, but since it has no article, this particular album must stand on its own. It has a one-paragraph introductory "review" at AllMusic which is merely an indicator of its existence, and the typical listings at retail/streaming sites. It has no other coverage in reliable sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Venturini Motorsports. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler Smith[edit]

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

Non notable individual who clearly fails WP:GNG. I deprodded it by a mistake so I felt it was my responsibility to nominate it here. Redirecting it to Venturini Motorsports seems like the best thing to do right now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, no refs in the article but possibly has a future, it is just a bit toosoon. Szzuk (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ik Onkar[edit]

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

Citations either only mention the subject of the article in passing or are unreliable; fails WP:GNG. Almost entirely original research. --Joshualouie711^talk 03:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 16:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't looked at the content or sourcing of the article, but this is a prominent symbol of Sikhism, so I would expect there to be an aricle about it. – Uanfala (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 132 results for "Ik Onkar" on Google Scholar. Though most of them are probably little more than a mention some of them should be good enough. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Anti-Feudal Dialectic of Sikhism Social Scientist Vol. 2, No. 8 (Mar., 1974), pp. 22-26: Guru Nanak gave a new orientation and complexion to the materialist tradition ... he envisaged the material, phenomenal reality as a creation of the transcendental spiritual reality (Ik Onkar). And much other discussion as well. Furthermore, I believe it's likely that sources are obscured due to problems with transliteration. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the holy symbols of Sikhism and the prime Mul Mantar. The refs presented are enough for demonstrating the notability, and a lot more coverage exists in Gurmukhi language --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to America's Got Talent (season 12)#Week 3. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Celine Tam[edit]

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

Somehow like an advertisement, feel free to rewrite B dash (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 16:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to America's Got Talent (season 12)#Week 3 Hyperbolick (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Hyperbolick. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure about artist specific notability guideline, but the subject seem passing WP:GNG for the news coverage in Chinese language article. the article itself looks like G11 material for citing many pirated video, hosted in youtube. Matthew hk (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Piazzo[edit]

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

Non-notable neighborhood in a Swiss municipality, article has existed for 10 years without any claim to notability and no additional sources of additional information to expand the article. Tobyc75 (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does appear to be a recognised settlement. Separate villages, even if part of another municipality for administrative purposes, as opposed to simple neighbourhoods of other settlements, are generally considered to be notable per WP:GEOLAND. See WP:NPLACE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this falls under "Populated places without legal recognition". While it appears on a map and is populated, it has no specific governmental role or authority. On the website of the municipality of Brusio it's listed as 1 of 5 districts in the municipality. As far back as 1960 it was not a municipality, so it wouldn't qualify based on formerly being a legally recognized municipality. Additionally, I can't find any further information to expand the article beyond its current size.Tobyc75 (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it doesn't, if you read the definition of that. Note that this also applies to most British villages or hamlets that are not parishes in their own right; however, they all have articles. A settlement does not have to have its own government or council to be a recognised populated place. It merely has to be recognised as an individual settlement. A settlement that is legally and/or administratively part of another municipality/parish/commune/whatever is still a recognised populated place. If we deleted all of the articles on villages that weren't actually administrative units in their own right we'd probably end up deleting half the articles on settlements on Wikipedia, which would certainly not benefit the project. We would also run into the problem that different countries have different administrative units in different sizes (e.g. Italy's comunes are generally considerably larger and cover more separate settlements than France's communes or England's parishes), which would result in bias for and against the inclusion of settlements in different countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears to be a village. It is another matter, for wp:RM perhaps, whether this should be moved to a more specific title such as "Piazzo, Poschiavo, Grisons, Switzerland" or whatever. --Doncram (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per all above, as this does appear to be a populated place. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of national teams with no FIFA Women's World Cup appearances[edit]

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

fail WP:NOTSTATS and see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of national teams with no FIFA World Cup appearances Hhkohh (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this isn't a WP:NOTSTATS article, the stats here are clearly explained and contextualised. I can't remember if the ones at the other AfD were or not. But I can't vote Keep yet since it's completely unsourced, and don't have time to look right now. SportingFlyer talk 11:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous Afd verdict for the men. What's next, List of political candidates who were not elected? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN, seems pointless also. Govvy (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as the men's article recently deleted; I don't see why it shouldn't be a redirect to National team appearances in the FIFA Women's World Cup (which kind-of covers it) but nobody really agreed last time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at M. A. Aziz Stadium[edit]

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

This is WP:LISTCRUFT 5 wicket innings are not that exceptional in test cricket. Most of the sources are simply score cards. This fails WP:NOTSTATS Dom from Paris (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the LISTCRUFT / NOTSTATS. there are a bunch of related articles in this navbox: {{International cricket five-wicket hauls by ground}} Spike 'em (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this isn't a notable subject for a list for the reasons given above and, simply, that it's not notable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at least one of the articles in the aforementioned navbox (List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium) is a Featured List, which suggests that it has been deemed a notable/appropriate topic for an article...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this argument, but... the 10 instances of five wicket hauls have been taken in the 8 Test matches to have been played on the ground. In other words, a five wicket haul happens, on average, more than once a Test match on this ground. I would argue with the notability of the feat in this instance. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even see there had only been 8 test matches there...there is a similar article on test centuries at the same ground, 12 of them including 3 double centuries. I'll see what happens with this discussion. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Delete per nom, per above. --nafSadh ^{did say}
Keep, at least procedurally: looking through similar topics, there is no reason why this list is not notable and the other lists on the topic are, especially lists that have risen to featured status. Probably worth a broader discussion if these articles are all worth keeping somewhere like the village pump. SportingFlyer talk 04:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Other stuff scenarios abound... This is classic list cruft. Carrite (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Bangladeshi cricket grounds. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Tiregar (Actor)[edit]

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

WP:N Ladsgroup^overleg 10:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable in Persian or English. فرهنگ2016 (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To stay
Y : Having a 300k followers on Instagram (Mohammad Tiregar)
Y : Having Wikipedia page in different languages of the world Wikipedia Irc - Wikipedia Ps
Y : Take a look at this page (Mohammad Tiregar)
Y : Having a biography on the official website of Iranian cinema (Mohammad Tiregar)
Y : Verified in Lenzor (Mohammad Tiregar)Nadersmp (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G5 (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zahra 1369/Archive) N~~ight~~D 11:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Flooded with them hundreds 13:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, and WP:DIRECTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolute fail of WP:NACTOR. Ajf773 (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:NACTOR due to lack of notable performance and wP:SIGCOV--DBig Xrayᗙ 15:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remain I reviewd Persian Sources. This person in famous. Zach ibook (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed This Person has the ability to have an article on wikipedia . Serendipiti12 (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will not be deleted Over the past few days, this page had been visited by more than 400 people ((Information))WikiPorsia (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 22:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flight for Life (UK)[edit]

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

no evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - can't find any evidence of it existing at all.GirthSummit _(blether) 10:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesnt appear to be a registered charity or have any official standing, a similar organisation "Flight For Life" is but doesnt appear to be connected to the individuals mentioned. Praise the effort but not sure it is noteworthy for an article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Municipal Art Society. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Center (art gallery)[edit]

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

Has no sources and has never had any since creation in 2005. A web search shows it to have closed and I do not see sources to support its notability. I recommend merge with Municipal Art Society. Lopifalko (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep or merge to Municipal Art Society. Five sources added; previously there were none. It obviously has a public profile. The help of a New Yorker would be appreciated, to determine the status of where it actually is and if it is still open! There. are mentions of a move int he NY times source.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry my mistake in saying that it had closed, if it has. I have not yet found a web site for it. And prior to my removing the link form the article, it had two web sites in External Links, the "Official website" was Municipal Art Society, as well as "The Urban Center book store". It is The Urban Center book store that Google says is "permanently closed". -Lopifalko (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 08:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Municipal Art Society. The NYT article provides significant coverage, but sources found in searches and and those added to the article are mostly listings in guide books that do not quite provide significant coverage. Other sources also only provide mentions, rather than significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Onyemelukwe Okechukwu[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and GNG. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if a source can be found showing he actually played for Enugu in the NPL (I can't find one) then he would pass WP:NFOOTBALL; without anything to verify claims to notability and nothing nearing GNG we delete. Giant Snowman 16:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per GiantSnowman; would change my vote if it could be proven that he appeared for Enugu, but as things stand he fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Lusby[edit]

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

Promotional article for non-notable artist. The sources are either database entries, mere mentions, or routine coverage. I would venture to say that this is the most substantial coverage of the subject provided, which I don't believe meets WP:GNG. The awards that the subject won are a "Tui Award for Best Children's Music Album of the Year" and a runner up for a New Zealand Music Award, which are not notable enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References for runner up for a minor award, claims of winning others not actually referenced. No in depth coverage, just a few mentions in passing. Nothing in the bio suggests inherent notability due to positions/achievements. Seems to have published a few books and maybe music pieces, but no reviews or other indicators of having an impact. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination for his countries top Music awards satisfies wp:music#8. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that the article can be fixed outside of AFD. (non-admin closure) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Sloan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NMG, with no charting singles, an empty lead and history section, and scarce mentions online.

Addressing the points brought up from the first nomination:

I've since done a lot of work to the article making it conform to our standards.

If standards mean a six-letter lead devoid of any useful information and a large discography section comprising primary iTunes links (and Qobuz, what's that?), I'm not sure what to say.

With the excellent work done by Michig and Davey

Define "excellent" and "work"? This is blind support for something unspecified.

Has contributed to major label albums such as Sony and Warner Brothers

So? We have many smaller artists who have contributed to said labels, but that does not mean they deserve a Wikipage if they fail the notability criteria.

The many sources linked on the nomination page

Linking sources which contains info isn't useful if it isn't used on the page. At the very least include those info in a separate "Career" or "History" section, which I fail to see here.

This page is not fit for mainspace viewing, seeing it lacks lots of information despite having "reliable sources". It's useless to link so many sources but not include them in the page (sticking them into discography songs doesn't count). At the very least, move it to a draft where it can be properly expanded. aNode (discuss) 06:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Nice table, but no text to speak of. Nothing in the article suggests the subject is passing notability, and I'll AGF nominator that it fails NMUSIC. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: yes, the many links to iTunes and Qobuz need to go, as does the tour section (she was the support act, not the headliner, so it's not notable). But Michig showed in the first AfD that there is coverage in Billboard and other music press, an AllMusic biography, and in addition to that there are pieces in The Guardian [72], The Line of Best Fit [73] and The Boston Globe [74]. Richard3120 (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, maybe try fitting those sources into the text? Plainly pasting these sources here doesn't mean much if it's not utilised in the article properly. aNode (discuss) 16:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP!, The nom says "This page is not fit for mainspace viewing, seeing it lacks lots of information despite having "reliable sources". It's useless to link so many sources but not include them in the page (sticking them into discography songs doesn't count). At the very least, move it to a draft where it can be properly expanded"

So the obvious answer to that statement is add a history section and do the necessary work - AFDing it is simply taking the lazy route and quite honestly it goes against the whole point of this website,

As noted by Michig and myself there are plenty of sources making this easily pass GNG although I do agree the Qubuzz and Itunes should go,

I'll add a history/personal life section within the 2 weeks as well as remove the Quzbuz (the Itunes cites are fine). –Davey2010^Talk 17:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:BASIC pass per available sources, such as those listed above and per some of them listed in the previous AfD discussion. While "AfD is not cleanup", if the article is retained, the {{Cleanup AfD}} template could be added atop it, directing editors to the concerns presented in this discussion. Furthermore, per WP:NEXIST, notability is based upon overall available sources, not the state of sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

El Rio (gay bar)[edit]

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

No in depth coverage in reliable sources, does not meet WP:ORGCRITE, WP:GNG. All provided sources are mere-mentions, listicles, or database entries. The closest to in-depth coverage is [75], but even that one isn't really about the bar and doesn't make any analysis or even discuss the establishment's history and on closer examination appears to be published as a blog post. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indepth coverage, mentions only in passing, fails WP:NORG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Run of the mill coverage for a, ummmmm, run of the mill gay Brazilian leather bar. Carrite (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Toronto District School Board. (non-admin closure) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glenview Senior Public School[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Of the provided sources, two are affiliated with the school, and the other two are maps that show that the school exists. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, middle schools are generally redirected to an article about the district or governing body. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Toronto District School Board, per long-standing tradition. Note to Rosguill: In the future, there is nothing to prevent you from just boldly redirecting the article yourself. If your redirect is reverted, then come to AfD. Most times you won't need to. John from Idegon (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to school board / district as above. Half of the article is about directions to the school so that can safely be removed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Toronto District School Board, per common practice....PK T(alk) 17:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Elevator (1996 film)[edit]

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

I found nothing that shows notability. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself isn't even about the topic. --Boothsift (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Baker Twins[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Page was soft deleted in May 2018 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Baker_Twins. KalHolmann (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology leading to 2nd nomination:

On 18 October 2018 User:SamuelParmi1 requested undeletion of The Baker Twins "because some hacker deleted it." This accusation was refuted by User:Jéské Couriano and brushed aside by admin clpo13, who'd deleted the page on 10 May 2018.
On 20 October 2018, without commenting at the page for undeletion, admin Diannaa restored the deleted page in lieu of a newly submitted draft (created October 19) that she explained "was a copy-paste, identical to the deleted article." In other words, no attempt was made to improve the page in the five months since its removal or to in any way address the reasons it was deleted.

Policy grounds on which to delete:

Unresolved Conflict of interest, specifically WP:SELFPROMOTE, by Thebakertwins, a single-purpose account that edited ONLY The Baker Twins, and was responsible for 16% of the total edits thereto, before being indefinitely blocked.
Unresolved WP:PROMOTION and Notability issues raised last May by User:Duffbeerforme, who noted, "Wikipedia is not a vanity publisher or a means of promotion. Sourcing is inadequate for notability. The girls own site, them talking about themselves, alumni publication, indiscriminate puff piece."

KalHolmann (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aditional to Chronology. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannon Baker. Articles on the two individuals were deleted after an afd in August. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a vanity publisher or a means of promotion. Sourcing is inadequate for notability. The girls own site, them talking about themselves, alumni publication, indiscriminate puff piece. Reposting by another newly created promotional SPA does not change the underlying lack of notability. (Diana's restoration was entirely above board as first twins afd was closed as soft delete). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Restoration was acceptable, given that there wasn't enough participation in the first discussion to render it a hard delete rather than a soft one, but what the article still fails to do is properly establish that they're notable enough to have an article at all. The references here are 50 per cent primary sources (their own self-published website, their own self-published tweet and a directory entry in IMDb) that cannot support notability — and of the three that are to media, one is an unrecoverable dead link to a student magazine (a class of sourcing we deprecate as much less carrying of notability than real general market media), while another is a Q&A interview in which they're talking about themselves in an advertorialized manner. The only source here that isn't a complete non-starter is Windspeaker — but while that's a start, it's not a magic finish all by itself as the only non-garbage source in play. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which people are entitled to have articles just because they exist — it's an encyclopedia, on which certain specific standards of achievement have to be attained, and certain specific standards of reliable sourcing have to be surpassed, for an article to become earned. But the sourcing here simply isn't cutting the mustard, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to cut mustard. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per KalHolmann's comments. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a possibility for canvassing/meatpuppetry although it doesn't seem to have happened. See this tweet. Vermont (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont: I fear you may misunderstand canvassing on Wikipedia. Our behavioral guideline discourages off-wiki communication to notify editors, but the tweet to which you link did not emanate (as far as we know) from a Wikipedia editor. Rather, it's a plea from a celebrity to her fans to help retain The Baker Twins, which her follower Dylan Curtis "apparently" restored. If you know of any Wikipedia directive that forbids such off-wiki entreaties by non-editors, please advise. KalHolmann (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KalHolmann, I apologize. I intended to give a warning for the possibility of many unnamed editors and/or SPA's coming to this page from the link on that Twitter post. Vermont (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If in the future this would be a useful starting point for a draft, let me know and I'll be happy to put it there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Air Force Structure 2020[edit]

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

WP:BALL or can be merged with Future of the Royal Air Force Sammartinlai (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sammartinlai (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Gavbadger (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or move to draft) per WP:BALL and WP:V and very poor fork of Future of the Royal Air Force. If the article was sourced - then there probably would've been merit for a merge - but we won't take a wall of unsourced text and place it into another article. Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FUTURE, nothing to salvage here to merge. --DBig Xrayᗙ 14:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Channelview High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL - no references besides a primary source (their official website). Potentially promotional. WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kirbanzo, if you can make such an assertion about a large, public high school in Texas, you need to rething the way you approach WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft and leave a redirect to school district and tag R with possibilities. There's nothing to say about the school other than it is in a school district for now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. I have started the process of expansion but yes, of course, there is much more work to be done but that is not a ground for deletion. Sufficient sources exist to meet WP:ORG. Just Chilling (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. -- Necrothesp (talk)
Keep, per Just Chilling. /Julle (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft per AngusWOOF. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's public high school. just tag for sourcing and move on. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and lots comes up in a news archive search, of course it does. Some of it is unusual, like natioal coverage of this Texas sdhool: COURT OVERRULES SCHOOL: Divorced Honor Student Wins Rights Her Classmates Enjoy,Chriss, Nicholas C. Los Angeles Times Los Angeles, Calif. [Los Angeles, Calif]02 Feb 1972: a1.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After two full relistings, no consensus for a particular outcome has transpired. Per very low user participation herein, closing with No prejudice against speedy renomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Wife[edit]

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

Non-notable Soviet film.--RTY9099 (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No evidence it is non-notable. No mention of wp:BEFORE. No mention of searching under any name, no "find sources" set up for searching of Russian-language name of film. Looks significant to me. --Doncram (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Lithuania wikipedia article about it, somewhat longer than our article (and google translated for me), the original language of the film is Lithuanian, not Russian, my bad, but as a Soviet era film maybe it should be searched for in Russian language too. The LT wikipedia article mentions some awards. I haven't done much searching. Try also:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL for searching on "My Little Wife" with various accents
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL for searching on "My Little Wife" without those accents

Again I think this should be kept, it looks more significant the more I browse about it.--Doncram (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 00:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment search results yield results for the significance of the film in the history of the director and various actors involved in the film. It has also been translated as "My Tiny Wife" and other variations. It seems that the director and the actors involved have, after some hiatus, become reinvolved in film. The very significance experience of their involvement in this monumental film is important in explaining their relatively recent impacts. --Doncram (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it's worth, given lack of any detailed support for the nomination, and some (my own) support for "Keep", I would tend to want to appeal any simplistic "No consensus" result, relative to somewhat supported "Keep" result. --Doncram (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Sandler[edit]

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

Musician and music producer with obscure significance and dubious sources.--RTY9099 (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 00:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Feng[edit]

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

A minor fictional character from Investiture of the Gods with zero secondary source establishing his notability. Article is poorly written by the blocked sockpuppet User:Tathagata Buddha, with nonsensical content about an "Akin Silver". Fails WP:GNG. Zanhe (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 00:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor fictional character. At best a redirect to Investiture of the Gods, even that is dubious as few will search for the character. There are some passing mentions in Chinese sources outside of the book itself, but not enough to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gaberiano[edit]

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

Decade old template for the inclusion of reliable sources. No realiable sources can be found. Does not meet the WP:Notability guidelines. Jiŋgiby (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Searching produces nothing substantial except a lot of false hits in Italian and some piece of genealogical fantasy which discloses the alternate name "Zaberian", which also produces no scholarly hits. I'm suspicious that the whole lot of "Bosporan kings" is bogus. Mangoe (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 00:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list article cited in the succession box. I am prepared to assume (for the moment) that there is some kind of source behind this, but the chances are that we know nothing but his name, so that there is no scope for a freestanding article. I suspect this will be based on one or two allusions in Greek Classical literature, possibly in the foundation myths of Greek colonies in the Crimea. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. @Mangoe: I have trimmed the list down to those kings that can be referenced from the linked articles. The three early kings I left (Teuspa, Lygdamis and Sandaksatru) are the only early kings I can find in any source. Srnec (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KoreFusion[edit]

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

No indication of meeting notability guidelines. References given are press releases and mentions in context of getting quotes from people working for the company without any WP:significant coverage of the company. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citations as of 18 Oct do not support notability—after reviewing all the citations in the current article, none are sufficient singly or in combination to support notability; they are a combination of items about products and people rather than primary company topics, with a couple of press releases (self-published) included. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient sources to establish notability—looking at newspapers.com, books.google, internet archive texts, and Bing search ... did not find sufficient content to support notability. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 00:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A company profile article, describing the firm's founders and consultancy lines and sourced mainly to connected alumni sites and speaking engagements. I am finding no evidence that this is more than a firm going about its business. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPIP and promotional, no indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don Baker (journalist)[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill newspaper reporter. Not even a suggestion of notability, nor any sources except for mention of appearing in a documentary about a campaign he covered. Calton | Talk 17:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local level political reporter with no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 00:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't look like he meets WP:JOURNALIST; on searching, I see a lot of name checks (not surprising for a reporter), but not any significant reliable source coverage of the subject himself. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above comment, no evidence of significant coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Mamet[edit]

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

Exceedingly short career (2 years) for film maker who fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:BIO, and WP:SIGCOV scope_creep (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet either WP:DIRECTOR or WP:ANYBIO. Lack of significant reliable source coverage to qualify under WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 00:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any indication that this person has yet become notable. The article can be re-created in the future if he eventually does become notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RBH Sound[edit]

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

An article that says almost nothing about the subject. In this case an audio equipment manufacturer yet all the sources are reviews of some (all?) of their products - mostly from a single source. Nothing about the company and nothing to indicate that it is notable. Any piece of equipment sent to a reviewer will get a review - these are not independent sources no matter how independent the reviewer. Article created by an SPA - looks like COI and possibly paid editing. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 00:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly advertising, fails WP:SPIP. Wikipedia is not a substitute for a corporate website. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete as equivalent to expired WP:PROD. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grow Up (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMOVIE. Coverage is mostly from user-generated IMDb or sourced directly to the film or trailer. Nothing usable found in WP:BEFORE. Tera TIX 12:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tera TIX 12:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tera TIX 12:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 00:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Gruhn[edit]

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

Non notable martial artist does not meet WP:MANOTE. Very (self?) promotional with ref bombing of trivial, distantly or unrelated. All competitions are low level. PRehse (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep his loss to a white belt got coverage at multiple independent BJJ related publications and coverage of his coaching work in schools means he's over the WP:BLP1E and WP:SUSTAINED bars. He meets WP:GNG which supersedes WP:MANOTE and the poor quality of the article in its current form is not valid grounds for deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All those articles from schools he's connected to do not add to his notability. As for the video of his "loss" to a white belt, either he's a terrible black belt or he was just giving her a chance to practice her skills--much like I've seen many adult instructors do when teaching children or less skilled adults. Papaursa (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see that he meets any of the notability criteria for martial artists and I don't believe the coverage meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 00:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable according to criteria. Legacypac (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete There are a lot of references listed, but they don't meet the significant independent coverage in reliable sources standard. Also doesn't seem to meet the notability standards for martial artists.Sandals1 (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Alméras[edit]

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

Driver who haven't raced in any professional racing series, and haven't any significant achievements, fails any WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NMOTORSPORT. Papaursa (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 00:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Lamp of Knowledge[edit]

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

Non-notable. As a quiz bowl player I can confirm that no particular trophies are very notable. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. A defunct award with no appearances in reliable sources should be a no-brainer -- if this were reported in newspapers, or if notable people were involved, I think it would be closer, but right now this isn't even the most notable thing called "Golden Lamp of Knowledge." Might also fall under WP:A7. RexSueciae (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing evidence that this collegiate quiz contest is notable in any way. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak SpinningSpark 20:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Palms Nursery[edit]

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

Nursery School. No indication of notabilty. No references (only external links to primary source). Searching only turns up directory-type listings. Fails GNG. MB 00:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article setting out the wares of a nursery business. Nothing in the text indicates anything more than a run-of-the-mill business and searches are finding nothing better than trivial coverage of a dentist's visit. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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