Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 October	29 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 no consensus. Trending towards keep. This is another of the several recent AfDs in which we disagree about whether extensive election-related media coverage makes a candidate notable. Sandstein 16:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hollie Hughes (politician)[edit]

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

Don't think this meets WP:POLITICIAN. She is notable only for a single event, that she was nominated by the National Party for the Senate but was ruled ineligible. The various mentions by local papers looking for a local angle don't meet WP:GNG. Boneymau (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis, and redirect - likely search term. Not notable in her own right. Single event - trim the merge to focus on that. But should have a paragraph or two in 2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis. Aoziwe (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On review this might be a weak keep, but there would need to be much better balance in the article. Currently over 50% of the article is about the one event, ie, the subject's involvement in the 2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis. More needs to be written about the subject's other activities, which if cannot be done brings us back to single event and a merge. Aoziwe (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. As the entry linked above reminds us, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" The sources include the national broadcaster, the tagline in the story by the ABC political correspondent asks "Who is Hollie Hughes: Regional powerbroker set for Fiona Nash's Senate spot". Not a local or state senate, the entire nation's. So rather than being 'only known for one event', she was noted for being a "powerbroker" before her second run at the senate, "For about a decade Ms Hughes has served on the Liberal Party state executive, and is listed on their website as the country vice-president." — cygnis insignis 15:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)<[reply]

Addendum: In reply to comments that a 'notability freebie'[?] stems from a single event, the ABC story precedes that, and notes she held high profile political positions and is retroactively described as a "power-broker" (as often happens, it is not necessary that be reported at time). Characterising Hughes as just another candidate who didn't get elected ignores the detail given in sources, perhaps blinded by the event named for her (a keyword in the numerous mentions at the parliamentary website, for example) in an extended episode in Australian political history. this wasn't column space and airtime given to candidates own statements. The very thing that disqualified her is also notable, the position she resigned from to run, which in turn brought light to a long and active career in politics and the ABC journo determined was in the public interest. Again, N was already established before the determination, the fact that those events are also notable, or "bloody much more" so, does not somehow diminish her own notability. — cygnis insignis 13:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many non-notable people hold state-level influence in political parties, and being on a party state executive or being a party state country vice-president is not even close to a claim to notability - almost all holders of those officers would be speedy deletion candidates. Members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal would also be unless they could somehow otherwise pass WP:GNG. These are not significant positions for Wikipedia purposes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not determined by users on talk pages, except where there is OR and SYN, it is determined by RS outside, in RL. The 'non-notable people' who have held similar positions are just that, not noted, and establishing that would be counter to policy. Wikipedia's purpose is not to decide who is notable independently of reliable sources, a wrong-headed or inverted approach from too much wikipedia, and people need to get over themselves if they have elected themselves to that role. cygnis insignis 04:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we have the guideline of WP:NPOL, which is interesting and technical in this case. Probably should only look at WP:GNG, which runs into WP:BLP1E issues as noted. SportingFlyer talk 04:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." My point is eluding you, the contest is between anons saying 'nahnah, she lost and is therefore a nobody loser' and bluffly invoking policy that blatantly contradicts them versus journalists' in RS, that is no contest except when people fancy adopting a bias pov in a debate. Which 'technical' point in that guideline is also eluding you? cygnis insignis 05:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every candidate in every election always receives campaign coverage, so the existence of that coverage is not an automatic GNG pass that hands a candidate a free exemption from having to pass NPOL by winning the election — campaign coverage only turns into a GNG pass for a non-winning candidate on the extremely rare occasion that the candidate has received so bloody much more coverage, compared to what every other candidate also gets, that she has a serious claim to being special. But that's not what the depth and volume of sourcing here are showing at all — they're just showing the normal and routine coverage that every candidate can simply expect, not a strong case for enduring "people will still be looking for this article ten years from now" specialitude. And no, "for about a decade Ms Hughes has served on the Liberal Party state executive, and is listed on their website as the country vice-president" isn't a notability freebie either — the way to make that an article-clinching notability claim is to reference it to media coverage she was already receiving in that role before she was a candidate for anything, not mere mentions of it as career background in the campaign coverage, but there are no sources being shown here that meet the correct standard on that count either. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable.I may be mistaken, but I think that the notability of the subject is found in her appearance before the High Court, as a part of the parliamentary eligibility crisis in 2017. Her ineligibility was ruled to be consequent to her "holding of an office of profit under the crown" - a ruling which hasonly been found a couple of times in Australia's history. She has also held a position on the NSW State executive as vice president, and founded a considerably sized charity in New South Wales. Although perhaps her characterisation in this article as a politician is wrong, her notability stems from the legal issues surrounding her case, as well as the political context which set the platform for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshi3755 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the basic points you make are correct. However, the court ruling remains for the subject a single event and hence not automatically notable. It should be properly recorded in 2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis where the notability of the court's ruling is certainly demonstrated, but the individuals concerned do not inherit notability from that. Aoziwe (talk) 11:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suspect nominator made a fairly common mistake nominators make at AFD. When an article has a disambiguator, like the disambiguator "(politician)" for this article, one can't rely on the suggested web searches offered when the AFD is instantiated. When one strips the disambiguator one sees many apparently good web hits.
Nominator, would you consider withdrawing this AFD. Geo Swan (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have considered, and I'll let it run. Not certain yet it isn't single event-related. Boneymau (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The very significant majority of these seem to be related to the senate eligibility matter, single event, and many of the remainder seem to be mentions with the main topic being about someone else? Aoziwe (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better than my crude search attempt, smothered with the court decision, but with links like 'Massive stoush' over plan to get more Liberal women into parliament this will become a pile-on. Withdrawing the nom and !vote is good advice. — cygnis insignis 18:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect: clear WP:BLP1E fail. I'm happy with a redirect to the parliamentary eligibility article, where we can include her basic information. SportingFlyer talk 12:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment) It seems as though her notability stems from not actually becoming a politician.Trillfendi (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the precedent of Wayne Dropulich which is substantially similar. Hughes was indeed elected on a countback, despite later being found ineligible. Wikipedia policy is for elected persons to have articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By which I mean she passes WP:POLITICIAN for election to national office. Heather Hill is also an example of an elected senator voided. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dropulich was elected though, Hughes was nominated by a party. SportingFlyer talk 09:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hughes was elected following a recount (usually called countback) of ballots after Fiona Nash was found ineligible. Then she was also found ineligible herself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, you're right. It's hugely confusing, though, because the high court immediately looked to see if she was ineligible, and she was "elected" way after the fact after being sixth on the Senate ticket, an unwinnable spot. Hill at least was in parliament and then kicked out. If you look at this on WP:GNG grounds, I think it's still a WP:BLP1E fail, as there are a couple other sources which are all fairly routine election coverage. SportingFlyer talk 10:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not right at all. Dropulich (who I argued strongly to keep) was formally declared elected to the Senate, which Hughes never was. The result of the initial countback was never formally declared and was rejected by the High Court which then ordered another countback excluding Hughes, so unlike Dropulich (and Heather Hill, who was also never in Parliament by the way), she does not meet the "elected" criterion of WP:POLITICIAN. The countbacks are not actually elections and cannot be declared by the AEC in normal fashion as they are special counts ordered by the High Court. The article is actively wrong about this too - it talks a lot about Hughes being "nominated" for the Senate by the Liberal Party in 2017, which is utter nonsense. Frickeg (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my confusion - I read the Wikipedia article and assumed it was a casual vacancy. It's been awhile since this happened, even though it was recent! SportingFlyer talk 11:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hughes is not the same as Hill and Dropulich, but they are all different from each other. Dropulich's election victory was voided, while Hill's eligibility was voided. The case with Hollie Hughes is surely substantially similar to the cases of Dropulich and Hill, and I don't think they have to be identical to those previous cases to be a sufficient reason to keep. It's within the same spirit that Dropulich and Hill were kept that Hughes should be kept, and Hughes has far more biographical information available than both of those. She was essentially elected but never confirmed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect. Hughes is a non-notable party figure and serial candidate for unwinnable seats. We have a longstanding consensus that losing candidates aren't notable and becoming a footnote in constitutional law associated with being a losing candidate doesn't end-run WP:BLP1E. I also note that Geo Swan's keep vote doesn't actually explain any justification at all beyond an attack on the nominator. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An 'attack on the nominator' by the user, nice try mate. Not getting up does not automatically disqualify persons whose notability is established by other sources, how does the source I found via Swan's search fail to provide an RS that confer that? Powerbroker! — cygnis insignis 12:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are many, many non-notable "powerbrokers" in state politics. I can think of maybe one or two unelected figures who are actually notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a list? Michael Kroger and Marcus Bastiaan come to mind. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No, this is a clear unsuccessful-candidate WP:BLP1E situation. More than likely she'll get a seat at some point, but until she does, absolutely no indication of notability. Frickeg (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. There seem to be a good range of reliable sources, but "failed candidate" seems to be the general theme, although the sources provide information about her well beyond that aspect of her life. That is generally agreed means she fails WP:POLITICIAN. The question is whether she scrapes over the bar for WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E as the "one event" spanned over a year. There is too much information in this article to make it sensible to try to merge it into the crisis or constitution articles. The article is currently flagged as an orphan, but if it is kept, there should be links from

--Scott Davis ^Talk 02:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Locus of newsworthy-to-the-point-of-being-historically-notable legal wrangling over eligibility. Copious coverage to allow writing of a fact-based article; in fact, this is a pretty good one. Carrite (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn't have to meet WP:POLITICIAN if otherwise meets WP:NOTABLE. Donama (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has the WP:SIGCOV to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Friedersdorf[edit]

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

This subject doesn't satisfy WP:BIO or general notability requirements. Eight of the nine citations are either primary sources or from blogs without a stated editorial policy. The citation from Nieman Lab is valid, but it is only referenced by one sentence in the article: "Friedersdorf compiles on a regular basis The Best of Journalism list, which is a curated list of news articles and investigative report, that he disseminates through a newsletter." When I searched Google I couldn't find any additional examples of discussion about this subject from reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability. Lonehexagon (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's summary of the Nieman Lab article is so wildly inaccurate that it calls not only WP:BEFORE but the good faith of this nomination into question.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've heard of him, and there's a decent amount of coverage of his writings, but I've been unable to find any biographical references that would justify a keep vote. I also don't see any list of contributors to The Atlantic that might be a merge target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "staff writer" at The Atlantic, one of America's leading magazines. Dozens of Wikipedia pages link to this longstanding albeit stubby page, a pretty good sign of notability. As is the fact that keying his name into a gScholar search shows that the article he writes are widely cited in books and scholarly journals. Articles he writes are widely discussed in other : 125 hits in a search for Friersdorf + Atlantic at National Review: [1]; [2]; [3], Here's a search of his name in the NYTimes listing 119 articles that discuss, feature or mention him: [4]. Moreover, his articles are cited and discussed in books and articles of his have been reprinted as chapters in books. and here: Liberal Distortion at The Atlantic, is Victor Davis Hanson attacking/engaging Friersdorf INDEPTH in what appears to be a part of a Davis Hanson v. Friedersdorf running battle. In sum, yes, article needs improvement (most Wikipedia articles do,) but this is a notable journalist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP and that the question at AfD is not, as Nom frames it, are sources presently on the page adequate, but, rather, is the subject notable?E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article has some persuasive sources, including Nieman Foundation for Journalism: How Conor Friedersdorf created a magazine-club experience through his “Best of Journalism list], and here: [5] is a search of his name on the Washington Post website showing that sundry pundits have been engaging with Friedersdorf's writing for years. Searching "Friedersdorf, conor" in gBooks [6] shows that his journalism is taken seriously and widely cited. There really does seem to be enough here to establish notability. As is true with most of our articles, this one could use improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:56, 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 19:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No inherent notability for journalists and the sources - largely his own bylined articles - mostly only prove he is a living person. Proof of life is not proof of notability. Chetsford (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I hate the fact that we don't have a Special Notability Guideline for journalists. Carrite (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the sources in the article right now are not independent, but as E.M.Gregory pointed out, good sources do exist; I think it's clear that this article meets WP:GNG. It needs improvement, but deletion isn't cleanup.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It's unfortunate this discussion didn't draw more participation, but after three relists, we need to pull the plug. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Energia-100[edit]

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

The development of this satellite is only supported by announcements dating from September 2015, with a presumptive launch date of 2018. No further news ever appeared, and now that we are nearing the end of 2018, this satellite is absent from all usual sources documenting ongoing projects and planned launches over the next 2-3 years, that we use for example to maintain 2018 in spaceflight, 2019 in spaceflight and hundreds of space-related articles. A WP:BEFORE search looking for any mention of this project in the last year, yielded no corroborating results.[7] It is doubtful whether the project ever started beyond the 2015 announcement. If this announcement is all we have, the project fails general notability. Hence, deletion looks like the best course of action. — JFG ^talk 20:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator is mistaken that there is no mention since 2015. This Space News article from 2017 says "A lack of business, change of ownership, and frayed bilateral relations between Russia and Ukraine stymied Sea Launch’s Angosat mission, which was supposed to be a dual launch with the Energia-100 communications satellite." This 2018 article and this (2017, in German) have essentially the same story. So even if it was never launched (or even built) it seems to have some notability as a failed project. However, a merge and redirect to AngoSat 1 may be appropriate if sufficient material for a decent standalone page is not forthcoming. SpinningSpark 20:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you cite talk about initial plans for Energia 100; they do not show any progress on it beyond the original announcement. Quoting the German source, Bei der Beauftragung des Satelliten war für 2016 ein Start auf einer Zenit-Rakete von der Seeplattform Odyssey zusammen mit einem anderen Kommunikationssatelliten namens Energia 100 anvisiert worden., which means When the satellite was contracted [talking about Angosat 1 from context], its launch was envisaged together with another communications satellite called Energia 100 from the sea platform Odyssey. I would only support a keep or merge if any source documents some development of this project in 2017 or 2018. Failing that, deletion is the way per GNG. — JFG ^talk 23:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:14, 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 no consensus to delete. bd2412 T 17:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

2017 American Ultimate Disc League season[edit]

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

nominating on behalf of an IP user, their reasoning follows. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is full of self-published sources and no reliable coverage can be found; falls under WP:ROUTINE. 99.203.30.102 (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we delete this page, wouldn't we have to delete the other season pages (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016)? --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:GNG because all its sources are the same self-published website and I found no evidence of WP:SIGCOV demonstrating the notability of this event in a WP:BEFORE search I did. As to the above comment, yes, if this article is deleted then the others should be nominated or perhaps PRODed as well, since they are in a similar condition and no one has even tried to defend this article. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the league is notable see American Ultimate Disc League, the season articles in general are similar to other sports. I think this particular article has some unwarranted information, for example the roster section needs deleting, but that is for cleanup. Szzuk (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted the roster section. Szzuk (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. A university may be notable in its own right, but that does not mean the seasons of its soccer team are automatically notable to. This season lacks any WP:SIGCOV in outside sources separate from the organization, so it clearly fails WP:GNG. Each article also stands or falls on its own merits, not get to stay because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the league is notable, its seasons are notable. This has already been relisted three times, make a call. Carrite (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. A university may be notable in its own right, but that does not mean the seasons of its soccer team are automatically notable to. This season lacks any WP:SIGCOV in outside sources separate from the organization, so it clearly fails WP:GNG. Each article also stands or falls on its own merits, not get to stay because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED; self-published sources and no reliable coverage, not even game scores. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to American Ultimate Disc League and delete - This is a hard vote for two reasons: I'm a former ultimate player, and a lot of work went into this, but the fact is that there's insufficient media coverage of the individual seasons. That would be necessary to defend having a content fork. The organization itself is borderline notable, but with the recent ESPN3 TV deal coverage and ESPN's coverage of the lone female player in the league Jesse Shofner [[8]], there's just enough to defend keeping the main league article. I think we're better off just replacing the individual seasons with a list of the two finalists from each year, with the final score. Man - someone spent a lot of time on this. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources out there, just because there weren't any on the page doesn't mean they don't exist. Individual games are certainly not notable enough for coverage but the playoffs do generate a significant amount of buzz within the Ultimate community. With work it could definitely get to a respectable status in terms of sourcing. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 03:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found no such WP:SIGCOV sources in a WP:BEFORE search I did. Please provide them or your blanket statement without proof should hold no weight. Also, it rather sounds like you are personally involved in this community. Fans liking an orginzation does nothing to demonstrate notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Man, you really want this page deleted. To start, I added a source to the page last night. Also, I do know what constitutes notability, although I may not have many AfD votes I have a lot of experience creating pages. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Main Maike Chali Jaungi Tum Dekhte Rahiyo[edit]

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

The show doesnt have significant coverage. Whatever sources I could find discuss about the cast members of the show, and the show is mentioned here and there. This is not significant coverage, and thus fails WP:GNG.

Also, this article could have been deleted under G5, as created by blocked sock of previously blocked master, but there are other editors who edited the article. Not surprisingly, most of other edits come from IPs, and SPAs, and what seems to be a sock/meat farm. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:TVSERIES as nationally broadcast and has coverage in reliable sources including the actors discussing their roles which is relevant, many editors involved apart from the creator including myself, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC) Obviously a popular series with the article receiving an average of 1178 page views a day Atlantic306 (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306: could you please provide reliable sources which discuss this TV show in depth/significantly? —usernamekiran(talk) 21:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A simple search yields a modest number of coverage examples. They, are nevertheless, legitimate references from reliable sources to the notability of the show: here, here, here, from sources like India Entertainment (here), Times of India (here) and more here. Den... (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Den...: Hi. Your first source, tellychakkar, is similar to IMDB. It tries to cover everything from Television. Just like having an entry on IMDB does not establish notability, having an entry on tellychakkar doesnt establish notability at all. The second source you provided, "xalmon.us" or "gametv" or whatever it is, is not reliable. The third source, entertainmentdog, is also similar to IMDB. In their about section they clearly mention Here at entertainment dog, we target to present all recent happenings and entertainment news from all across the nation. So having an entry there doesnt establish notability either. Fourth reference is a tweet by "Indian Express Entertainment", an online entertainment wing of a reliable source. But again, it doesnt establish notability as that twitter handle has 60.3k photos/videos, and 92.8k tweets; one of them about that show. And about the last source, it is a puff piece; more like a promotional release. Excluding the last TOI/entertainment times source, all the other sources only confirm the existence; but existence is not notability. And even if we count the TOI source as legitimate, even then the show fails general notability guidelines. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: It is at this point, when we spar for the significance of notability, that we part ways. The fact the show has been mentioned in these and other sources is for me evidence enough of the need WP has of including it in its pages. I have never watched this program and did not even know it existed (but I don't watch much TV anyhow), and yet, I think this subject passes (WP:N), even if barely. In short, this article enhances WP's scope and reach. The notability guidelines were written to help diminish abuse (WP:WHYN), particularly in self-promotion. I don't see that problem here. I see this article as an attempt to inform, and since we are free to exercise editorial judgment (WP:PAGEDECIDE), I believe we all can transcendence whatever attachment we may have with the law to appreciate the usefulness in this article. Den... (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject easily passes both WP:GNG and WP:TVSERIES, I have added some references myself, and with the coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, notability is not an issue here. I will agree with nominator that the references that were posted up here were weak except the Indian Express Entertainment one. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's comprehensive analysis.∯WBG^converse 12:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Henry Petersen[edit]

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

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Assorted WP:BEFORE searches have not provided any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, just mentions and name checks. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. Church News is owned by the LDS Church, and Stories of Our Mormon Hymns was published by the Deseret Book Company, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is wholly owned by the LDS Church. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excluding book sourcers because of who their publisher is becomes a really, really bad precedent. This especially applies here where it adds up to an attempt to exclude a whole subject of inquiry from Wikipedia coverage. It is built on flawed understandings of reliability, control, and indepedence. Deseret Book Company operates as a for profit company. Two and three levels of ownership to prove a connection to an organization that the subject has no control over creates too broad a system of exclusion. This is especially true when one considers the broad way in which publishing companies operate, which is a very different model than the way newspapers operate. The decisions about book content have much less to do with ownership either in this case or in general than in newspaper publishing. Basically this nomination is built around trying to apply the same standards to evaluate book sources we sometimes use to evaluate newspaper sources, but with no recognition of the real process of building these sources, and totally ignoring the the largest factor in evaluating books is who the author was, and that J. Spencer Cornwall was a leading figure in musical sources and is a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If the subject was actually wiki-notable, reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject and provide significant coverage would be easy to find. None appear to exist. All available sources are ultimately owned by the LDS church, making them primary, as per my rationale in the nomination. It's also important to keep WP:SPIP in mind, which states:

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.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the sources are no better in quality than all the other LDS articles up for nomination. Szzuk (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:12, 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 no consensus. The possibility of merging can continue to be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 12:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Straight man cancer[edit]

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

This nomination is wholly on the behalf of 2601:282:B01:A696:A044:6078:BF4E:5A41, who can't start AfDs due to being unregistered. Their rationale on the talk page was The article is using limited sourcing, that does not show long-term notability, and therefore is not in compliance with WP:NOTNEO. This seems appropriate for urbandictionary, not here. Their rationale on the previous PROD (which was contested) was Article has clear issues with reliable sourcing, and non-encyclopedic commentary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and especially not Urban Dictionary 2.0..

I personally don't have an opinion; I'm completely neutral atm as to whether this page should be deleted or not. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 12:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hegemonic masculinity. zh:直男癌 redirects to their version of toxic masculinity. This can be covered there to provide international examples of this topic. feminist (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough sustained coverage on there to pass GNG. I think if we look at a few Chinese sources we can definitely shore up the article to be even stronger. Disagree with the IP's rationale that this is more worthy of an "urban dictionary entry", since this phrase has received plenty of coverage in English speaking sources, which says a lot about the phrase's notability. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply after opinion invoked: The existence or occurrence of reporting on any subject/phenomenon/fad/phrase/place/etc does not automatically create (WP:NOTNEWS) long-lasting notability (otherwise referred to as, the standard by which most all article here are allowed to exist and be maintained). The term has gotten coverage in less than 15 sources and an even smaller percentage of those are reliable sources at all, and what's left of those is mired by at least two sources that seem to be interviewing the person who coined the term (making them primary and therefore null in assisting to determine notability here, as the news articles were not specifically about the term beyond a "passing mention"). I am not saying the term is not used at all (which is a misrepresentation of my previous articulation on this), only that it has yet to be used enough to be considered notable... and even if it had been, there's a rather strong (over 15 year long) precedent already set by the redirect for male chauvinist pig (which has a much higher rate of reporting, and has shown clear lasting notability), which would almost surely be seen as a WP:POVFORK if done as an article. But, I would be highly open to redirecting this article to the same target as that, with the important (even if albeit entirely limited in depth) data from the NYT, Guardian, BBC and other outlets on this culture specific (and even to a large degree Weibo.com-centric) phrase merged to ensure nothing that should be kept ends up gone. 2601:282:B01:A696:8040:10F1:A6A1:B28F (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mentioned that this seems to have WP:SUSTAINED coverage which means WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply. I don't see how this is a POV fork at all, and just because there's no article on a similar English saying doesn't mean that this topic doesn't pass GNG. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hegemonic masculinity, which is on the same topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree with redirecting. Non-western conceptions of hegemonic masculinity are definitely worthy of discussion, and redirecting is a disservice to the comprehensiveness of our encyclopedia and worsens its western bias. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 07:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Hegemonic Masculinity A redirect alone won't capture this specific international example, but agree it serves best as part of the broader topic. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Simonm223: @Feminist: I'm a little confused on the merge rationale. Why merge and not keep? The article appears to pass GNG to me and there's a substantial amount of coverage of this saying in English sources. My Chinese is terrible so I'm not sure I should be looking for sources, but are we sure there's not even more sourcing out there in Chinese? – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 07:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's definitely notable; but I'm uncertain it's due its own article. As Feminist pointed out, the Chinese Wikipedia article currently does redirect to their version of Hegemonic Masculinity, and while WP:OSE applies, it does demonstrate that this is an appropriate solution here. I don't want to see the information deleted outright. But I feel it is better suited as an example of a broader phenomenon than as a stand-alone article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we necessarily need to use Chinese Wikipedia as precedent. We have no idea why it's currently a redirect. Did it get redirected due to an AFD? If so, we should probably examine that AFD to see if the closing corresponds with our AFD standards. Or is it because an editor hasn't had the time to write up a full article on the phenomenon yet? I'll note that the Chinese article on hegemonic masculinity doesn't mention "straight man cancer" at all, so there's already an absence of content that isn't true for English Wikipedia. Regardless of the article's status on Chinese Wikipedia, it's my opinion that, even considering English only sources, this topic passes WP:GNG. And at the risk of WP:MUSTBESOURCES, I'm sure there must be a few Chinese sources on this phenomenon as well. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've cleaned up the refs which include The Wall Street Journal China, The Telegraph and Bloomberg Businessweek, since the argument in the OP is RS then I think there is enough. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable neologism — and a non-English one to boot! Carrite (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Redirection to hegemonic masculinity might be a reasonable outcome. Carrite (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Either Merge to Hegemonic masculinity, or rename as Misogyny in China. This is English Wikipedia, not Chinglish Wiktionary. Just because these 2-year-old Internet neologisms got coverage in Western media doesn't mean they are any more notable than 2000-year-old expressions in Chinese. Timmyshin (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirect to Hegemonic masculinity is not a viable option because, as nom stated, WP isn't urban dictionary 2.0, it's an encyclopedia. There are no terms on here that urban dictionary specifically is designed to cover. While WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD could apply here, they definitely shouldn't. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 00:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References suffice, and the hegemonic masculinity article is much longer and hence not suited to merging. WP:NOTADICTIONARY doesn't apply as this article explains a cultural concept rather than merely defining a term. Λυδ α cιτγ 08:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1995 British Army order of battle[edit]

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

There is no rationale provided for creating an order of battle for the British Army in 1995. We are not going to have an order of battle for every year of the British Army's existence, so why this one? Also, no sources have been provided, and multiple attempts to communicate with the article/list creator have failed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. User seems to be simply adding Orders of Battle (ORBATs) with a) no verifiable sources b) no logical reasons for it. The best are the 1989 orbats but even then, they lack a justification as to why. Sammartinlai (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due lack of sources and communication A good argument can be put forward that a 1995 listing of units is notable and justifiable in the encyclopedia, but this user cannot be allowed to just write whatever they think is vaguely right without following WP:RS and being prepared to communicate and improve articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of British Regular Army regiments (1994) to become List of British Army regiments (1994). This is not an order of battle or even list of formations and units, as it includes no organisations above the regimental level. We have several lists of British Army regiments, and none of them, as far as I know, has been nominated for deletion. As a full list of the British Army's regiments (including both Regular and Territorial) after the reductions immediately after the end of the Cold War, this article could have value. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Buckshot06: are we sure that there were no signigicant changes between 1994 and 1995? If so then I support that suggestion. SpinningSpark 14:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No significant changes, no; the 'Options for Change' force reductions were being carried on throughout this period, but neither article tracks exact dates of battalion & regiment disbandment/redesignations.. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Buckshot06's suggestion. Gavbadger (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should be merging material sourced from what appears to be a non-RS personal website. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was during peacetime, is nothing more than bureaucratic record-keeping, and fails WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fail WP:GNG - whole pocketbooks are written on the organisation of the British Armed Forces - see Pen & Sword's every-year series. Eg the latest 2016-17.. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons above. And also delete 1989 British Army order of battle and 2007 British Army order of battle for same reasons. Dormskirk (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dormskirk: I don't think 1989 British Army order of battle should be nominated for deletion; it has significance--end of the Cold War and can be worked upon. The 2007 British Army order of battle by all means. Sammartinlai (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~OK. Fine with me. Dormskirk (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete '~~Re-organize~~ all of these articles that are by year into a single table which has columns such as these: name of regiment, type (armor, artillery, etc.), date formed, date disbanded, notes (such as which regiment it was merged into) such as I just proposed here: Talk:2007_British_Army_order_of_battle#Proposed_Table~~Delete~~ per nom, Sammartinlai, Narky Blerk, and Noclador and my thoughts below.~~I see nothing particularly significant in WP:RS to justify this or other similar articles like it.~~ --David Tornheim (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC) [revised 05:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC), 14:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC), 08:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)][reply]

@Peacemaker67: Are you going to submit some of the others? I would probably vote to delete them too. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, but sort of hoping that the creator will take advice after the block ends... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: I suggested that 2007 British Army order of battle be merged with List of British Army Regiments (2008) although now I have second thoughts and think the former should be nominated for a AfD. But that's my thoughts. Sammartinlai (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any WP:RS for either? --David Tornheim (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe history books or news archives, but not sure and not confident.Sammartinlai (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then why keep any of it? It's clear that the user put a lot of work into it, and I hate to see all that work lost--what a horrible experience as a new Wikipedian. I could also see how it might be useful to some people and researchers. But at the same time, if we allow any one of these to stand, that would justify one for every year of the British Army's existence. It also seems to have problems with verifiability. To avoid losing all that work, I might support a usersfy of the existing work, but would oppose any new pages like this being created, until clear guidelines are setup on what is acceptable.

Maybe we could have a single article that has all the units from British history from all time, where the units are listed in the order they came into being (or in the order that they came to be under the British command) and the date they were eliminated? Perhaps as a table with a column for each of the key dates. One that contains all the information for all the years. That would work for me. What do you think? --David Tornheim (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to you over this but personally either remove or merge 2007 British Army order of battle. Sammartinlai (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. @Peacemaker67: What do you think about the table idea? --David Tornheim (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd first want to be convinced that there are reliable sources for this material. Having said that, the British Army has had many complex expansions and contractions in its centuries of existence, and I can't see any article/list covering them all. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I too have concerns about lack of sourcing (with only one source at present), although all the linked articles seem fairly well-sourced. My guess is that there is sourcing somewhere given the significance of the British military. What I like about it is that it gives a top-down view of where all of these articles on the various regiments fit together. What I don't like is the extreme level of detail in the Royal Signals, and the listing of all the companies within each infantry regiment. It seems like too much detail. If it had only the regiments, the company organization under the regiment could be addressed within the article on the regiment.

How many re-organizations are we talking about? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dozens over the years. I agree about the level of detail. My rule is you go two levels down in orders of battle, but don't go below battalion or independent company-level sub-units. So you wouldn't mention infantry companies, and you'd mention the signals squadrons, but not signals troops. You are right that the breakdown of battalions could be covered in the regiment articles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. I created such a proposed table here: Talk:2007_British_Army_order_of_battle#Proposed_Table. I did just look at List of British Army regiments (1994), and that it far more readable that this list. I'm considering changing my vote to reflect Buckshot06's proposal to merge, or just eliminate the ones we don't need, like this one. I can definitely see justification for separate British infantry brigades of the First World War, British brigades of the Second World War, and many of the others in the British Army lists, which are certainly far better than one table that would attempt to explain it all. What I don't want is to clutter those useful lists with one for 1994, 1995, 1996, etc. Having a handful since WWII is tolerable, but no more than that. So I do agree with and appreciate this WP:AfD that will get rid of unnecessary articles. Possibly an article like the 1994 list can cover a time span rather than just the specific year, as I assume the WWI and WII entries.

How about we have a centralized discussion with proposals for all of the lists we would keep (with justification for keep) and all of the lists to delete at one of these AfD's and then point to the centralized discussion from each of the individual AfD's? It might be easier to have a global discussion than having to look at each list individually out of context. I'm not suggesting the result of the decision there would trump the individual AfDs--we could still vote at the individual AfD while giving our justification for the results of the more global discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A timeline of the British Army by unit and year, as suggested above, feels like an interesting and encyclopedic topic, but a seriously difficult one to research and to write. The Light Infantry gives an example - mergers, disbandments, elements moved elsewhere, you-name-it. Narky Blert (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete 1995 British Army order of battle. There is no justification to have an order of battle for a year that saw no relevant changes in world history. Orders of battle for i.e. 1939 (outbreak of WWII) or 1989 (end of the Cold War) are highly relevant and should be created for all countries involved in these wars.
I just saw 1989 British Army order of battle and it is partially a copy/paste of my work at User:Noclador/sandbox/Structure of the British Armed Forces in 1989. I kept that draft hidden in my sandbox, because I could not find enough sources to confirm the correctness of the information. As people have copied part of my work from my sandbox and added it to the 1989 British Army order of battle and some have begun to add sources to the lesser work that could be found there, I have now copy/pasted all of the draft into the wiki mainspace. I do not know what the etiquette/rules re. the copying of material from one's sandbox are, but I am right now quite pissed that this has happened. If one copies stuff from my sandbox a) ask and b) copy it all and then let's work together to source and improve it. noclador (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised that you are "pissed" and quite rightly so; plagiarism like this is unacceptable. As per my comment above, I am even more of the view that we should delete 1989 British Army order of battle and 2007 British Army order of battle as well. Dormskirk (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone did this to me once too; moved my sandbox into the mainspace, resulting in two articles on the same subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously not cool. I have not heard of Wiki-plagiarism, but that sounds like the right way to describe it. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Noclador. Who did the copy-paste? I suggest posting about it on their talk page if you haven't already. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor, who did the copy-paste has been following this discussion and came to my talk page to ask "Sorry". I accepted it easily and won't name the editor here, because he is doing good work and is an editor with positive and helpful attitude. What I care about now is to find editors willing to help source the 1989 British Army order of battle, because at the end of the Cold War the British Army was at its most complex and since then has been in steady decline. In my view the key order of battles for the British Army are 1881 (Childers Reforms), August 1914, September 1939 and December 1989 (end of the Cold War). All structure or orders of battle for other years are of little value. noclador (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about having a centralized discussion about which years we keep and which to ditch? And then once that is decided, we could submit all the years that are not in that list to AfD and refer to the centralized list? I feel like having a discussion at each article a bit overkill. Sammartinlai Do you agree it would be helpful to have a centralized discussion about this? A similar concern about AfD on multiple articles has come up here (permalink) --David Tornheim (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is a process for "bundling" multiple AfD's: WP:MULTIAFD. We should probably use that. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Fatima[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines ACTOR and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After cleaning up the mess that this article had (unreliable blog sites, sourcing YouTube, Dailymotion and unofficial online episode watching links), it came down to two sources left, the first being close to trivial and second being very trivial so not enough to push her through bare notabilty per WP:GNG. Checking her roles, she seems to have prominent roles in Lagao and Kab Mere Kehlaoge. Does seem like a very promotional article which violates WP:PROMO, considering the article's creator mostly edited just this article alone. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Jovanmilic97 but the article have now not two but four RS and played major role in almost three TV series of which two are mentioned above and third one Aashna push her towards notability.
Comment Changed my vote to keep, considering she passes WP:NACTOR. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:09, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 16:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bete Amhara[edit]

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

Original research proposing the existence of a fictional historical province. Turtlewong (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wollo Province. SportingFlyer talk 10:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per sportingflyer. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another ill-judged nomination by the same person. Bete Amhara clearly refers to a real region as can be seen in a number of sources - [9][10][11][12]. These sources indicate that it means 'Province of Amhara' or 'domain of Amhara' and that it was a former region of medieval Ethiopia, and recognised populated places are considered notable per WP:GEOLAND. There are however problems with the article and it needs tidying up, but that is a different issue. Hzh (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think these sources support a merge either to Wollo Province, Amhara Province or Amhara Region. While I can't see #2 or #3 in full, the only place I see "Bete Amhara" used in the fourth source, and even then it's only in passing. SportingFlyer talk 01:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was an error in the second one, I've fixed it. I'm not sure why you can't see the third one. The region is also called Beta Amhara or Bet Amhara in a number of sources - [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. I gave only a small fraction of the sources I can see, and there are so many sources that if you look into it enough, you will see more in-depth coverage (some of these for example have further description of the place but we can only see small parts of the books). The sources indicate that it was the origin of the Amhara people and centre of the country historically, clearly a place of some significance. Places such as this are presumed to be notable per WP:GEOLAND, and we should not entertain nomination that is completely wrong in the reason given - the nominator appears to randomly nominate articles remotely related to Ethiopia giving spurious reasons that made me suspicious of the motive behind the AfD. Hzh (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only question remains is whether Amhara Province and Bete Amhara refers to the same thing. That however should be left to people who are more knowledgeable about the history of the country, at most leave a merge proposal tag rather than actual merging. Hzh (talk) 10:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen from the sources I would support a merge to Amhara Province, but I'm certainly no subject matter expert. It's definitely not "fictional," though! SportingFlyer talk 10:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On casual observation the two terms look to be the same given that some sources translate it as 'Province of Amhara', but personally I'm wary of assuming something to be the same without knowing more, since many places can have different or similar names that refer to somewhat different entities historically or geographically. Hzh (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found coverage in various places including here, here, and here - Google Books is full of hits that show the notability of this subject. Isingness (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miquel Reina[edit]

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

Non-notable person, whose debut and sole novel was self published jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer. My sister-in-law who has written a few books and used to be a journalist for the Salt Lake Tribune and is now a free-lancer is closer to being notable, and she is not notable. Her books were not self-published for one thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a closer look. One novel, self-published - HOWEVER, it was then pickup up by a mainstream publisher, brought out in print, and translated into German, French, and English. Sourcing may exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a closer look at the novel in question, Lights on the Sea, and I can only find self-published blog reviews of the book- i.e. not the "significant work" required by WP:NAUTHOR. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, the refs in the article give some indication of notability but it is pretty close to a delete. Szzuk (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable author, WP:TOOSOON. Isingness (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Abrea[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Virtually no coverage found at all in independent, reliable sources, other than a couple of fleeting mentions, which are nowhere near significant coverage. Furthermore, the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability outside of the LSD Church. Den... (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History does not come even close to having articles on most general authorities, but it has one on Abrea. Then there is this source [21] and this source [22]. These make enough to show a passing of general notability guidelines. I am suspecting there are other sources in Spanish that discuss Abrea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History 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 are not usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is now how primary source is defined. It is a work editoed by three academics. Therefore it is either a secondary or tertiary source, it is in no way a primary source. Your attempt to define it as such is a grosse misuese of the term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History should be treated as a primary source. Primary sources are usable to verify information, but are not usable to establish notability. As a tax-exempt religious organization, the LDS Church avoids directly owning for-profit ventures, because this would threaten its tax-exempt status, so it uses the church-owned Deseret Management Corporation as a holding and management company to own and manage for-profit ventures, one of which is the Deseret Book Company, which publishes the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History. It's all highly interrelated with the LDS Church. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. North America makes sense to me. The Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History should be treated as a primary source. Another way of seeing it, this publication is not and cannot be an independent source. The same criteria applies to similar publications, for example, the SDA Encyclopedia. Imagine if we would use this resource as a secondary source simply because it is written and edited by scholars, with Ph.Ds and years of publishing experience. It simply cannot qualify. Otherwise, we should reproduce it almost entirely here in WP. In other words, we should either merge/redirect or delete this article. It does not satisfies WP:N. Den... (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep = The LDS Church has more than 16 million members. This is a larger population than many sovereign nations. It seems akin to holding a national legislative position. Additionally he is the first from Latin America to hold this position, which adds to his influence on this substantial movement. How is this not encyclopedic? It seems that a reader wishing to know more about LDS history and culture would seek encyclopedic information about Ángel Abrea. This isn't some garage band who sold 200 copies of their album, or a pastor of some local congregation. Regarding the source, if it were Abrea who were writing about himself the it should be discounted, but should we eliminate sources about Nebraska written by Nebraskans who may love their State? It the book is known for promoting it's subjects, then fine. But if it is known for biographical entries about highly influential people in one of the largest, most significant religious movements of the 20th and 21st centuries, then it is a useful resource. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "delete" opinions do not identify which sources they consider relevant for notability and do not address the criticism by others of the existing sources. Sandstein 16:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Boogeyman (2010 film)[edit]

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

Article is written by the director/producer User:Tech2012 [23] who seems to use Wikipedia as their primary source of marketing. Only independent sources here are capsule reviews. Fails WP:NFILM and is probably eligible for WP:G11 given the WP:PUFFERY. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFILM. Spleodrach (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've cleaned the article up quite a bit and I did find some of the coverage mentioned. So far the only usable review I could find, however, was from HorrorNews.Net and I will say that most of the coverage as a whole are interviews, so any notability here is shaky. It'd be different if I could find that SFX coverage, since the magazine is pretty well thought of. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as there is some coverage in reliable sources in the article, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, as per Atlantic306. --Gpkp (u • t • c) 16:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify which sources pass WP:NFILM? Two of them are interviews, which are not secondary, one is explicitly labeled a "short" review, and independent.ie source is only a passing mention of the film and spends most of its time discussing the filmmaker. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:12, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patsy Reid[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:AUTOBIO of a musician, completely unreferenced to any evidence of reliable source coverage about her (the only "references" present at all here, until I stripped them, were WP:ELNO violating links, sitting right in body text, to primary sources like her own "buy my albums" store on her own self-published website.) Since I'm not the expert in where to dig up British media coverage, I'm willing to withdraw this if an editor in the UK contingent can track down enough valid sources to salvage it -- but this has been flagged as unreferenced for 4.5 years without ever having a single valid reference added to it, so it's not entitled to stick around in perpetuity in this form if nobody's prepared to fix it. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it wasn't so old, I'd suggest draftifying but there seems no point as the creator is not likely to make any improvements. Deb (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've done a WP:BEFORE search, and all I can find are unreliable blog posts and very trivial mentions. Fails WP:BIO, and WP:NOTPROMO probably applies as well.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that draftifying should only be done if the topic is not yet shown to be notable but it is actually notable due to sources which exist, but are not in the article yet. In cases where a WP:BEFORE search doesn't show notability, it should be deleted as normal; there's not much point sending non-notable topics to be worked on in draftspace.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. It is a John Carter page, I was testing the validity of this type of page per the WP:ANI (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diarmait ua Tigernáin[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, no refs in the article, google showing wp mirrors. Szzuk (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article was copied from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article, which contains a bibliography: "Martyrology of Donegal (Dublin, 1864); O'HANLON, Lives ot the Irish Saints (Dublin 1875), IV, 476; I, 152; STUART, History of Armagh, ed. COLEMAN (Dublin, 1900); Acta SS., April, III; COLGAN, Acta SS. Hiberniae (LOUVAIN, 1645); BIGGER, Inis clothrarann, its History and Antiquities (Dublin, 1900); STOKES AND STRACHAN, Thesaurus Palaeohibernicus (Cambridge, 1903)." I don't have access to those books, but I think both the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia combined with its own references would be sufficient for WP:V. (Doing a Google search doesn't really work to determine notability for mediaeval history; a lot of more obscure persons and events in mediaeval history are arguably notable yet won't be found in a Google search, only by consulting specialised reference works which aren't freely available online, or even aren't online at all.) SJK (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Diocesan bishops of major denominations are notable. The Catholic Encyclopedia is a reliable source, so the claims that it is unsourced and unverifiable are untrue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 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 keep. Mz7 (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

States headed by Elizabeth II[edit]

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

As per talk page: the title is unwieldy and the article exactly correlates to Commonwealth realm, whose first sentence reads "A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state in which Queen Elizabeth II is the reigning constitutional monarch." So far as I can see there is no information in this article which is not found in the Commonwealth realm article. Does anybody in the world imagine that there is a nation where the Queen is the head of state and she is not simultaneously the monarch? Why do we need two articles covering exactly the same ground? I suggest that this article's content be merged with Commonwealth realm if any difference can be discerned. Pete (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as this appears to be an attempt to deny that Elizabeth II is Australia's head of state. Note that about a week ago, the nominator unilaterally removed 'head of state' from the Commonwealth realm article. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comment there, are you somehow implying that if the Queen is head of state, she is not also the monarch? I mean, she's not head of state of any place but a monarchy, now is she? Also, you haven't addressed the points raised for deletion:

The title is awkward
The material duplicates that found in Commonwealth realm

Why do we need two articles covering the exact same ground? --Pete (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've given my two cents. It's up to the rest now. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is a difference in the way that the information is presented between the two articles: one is descriptive and addresses the present situation with a separate section on history, while this one is more of a straight timeline. It's possible that they could be merged, but at some point someone else is going to be Leader of the Commonwealth, and then the meanings of the two pages will further diverge. If the current title is awkward then a better one can be proposed, but I think it's fine. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Commonwealth realm. While it's true that this page presents the information in a different format than the other one does, that's not a reason why they need two separate articles — simply adding the table to the other article wouldn't overwhelm it. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Elizabeth's unusually long reign (the chance that any of her immediate successors will come even close to matching her is essentially nil) plus the fact that her reign covered the period of decolonization when many former British colonies were Commonwealth realms of ephemeral periods of time, make this page both of interest and distinct from Commonwealth realm per se. Plus already there are countries where George VI was head of state where Elizabeth wasn't. If it's going to be merged with anything, perhaps it should be that other page of Elizabethan superlatives, List of prime ministers of Elizabeth II. --Jfruh (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously notable - advocacy deletion causes should be closed immediately. Speedy keep Speedy close.--Moxy (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Undoubtedly notable, the only question is if it duplicates information in Commonwealth realm. I think there are enough differences to warrant an individual article, and it can also be expanded. Hzh (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tailor Brands[edit]

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

Raised $20 million funding, founded 2014 - cannot see how this passes WP:NCORP. Previously speedily deleted. Edwardx (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. While it's possible for articles created and later edited by confirmed sockpuppets to be quality contributions to the encyclopedia, this article relies on regurgitated PR, weak attempts at inheriting notability, and marginal sourcing, including routine funding coverage, Forbes "contributor" work, and at least one source that does not mention the company at all. It does not add up to notability under WP:NCORP, even if the obvious WP:PROMO issues are overlooked. Bakazaka (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 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 keep. Consider this withdrawn. There's no reason I can't turn this into a one-sentence stub, so I'll just do that and we can work from there. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second Battle of the Alps[edit]

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

This article is a hoax, with almost all of it being unsourced and untrue. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military#Eyes on some doubtful editing on the end of WWII. may be consulted for details. The topic itself appears to be marginally notable (and anyone interested is invited to clean it up), but what is currently here cannot be permitted to remain. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic notable. Reliable sources available and in article bibliography. Needs improvement, not deletion. In what sense could it be a hoax? Srnec (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the sense that the basic core of information presented is substantially false, written with the intent to deceive (remember the creator is an anti-French, pro-Italian POV-pusher). I completely agree that it needs clean-up more than anything (I said this in my nomination), but I can't do that work, and I'm operating under the premise that AfD is the correct route when deleting all of the false/unverified content in an article would leave it devoid of content. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 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. Sandstein 12:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Williams (karateka)[edit]

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

This is an article about a non-notable martial artist who fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Article was created by an SPA who likely has a COI. The article shows no significant independent coverage and my search also found nothing to support a claim of notability. Running karate schools is a job, but does not grant automatic notability. Martial arts rank (becoming an 8th dan in 20 years) has never been accepted as grounds for notability nor have martial arts halls of fame. There's no evidence he was ever a kickboxer, much less one who meets WP:NKICK. His doctorate is from Southern Indiana Bible College (now Frontier Christian University) a non-accredited school. Papaursa (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Appears to be self promotional.PRehse (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search did not reveal significant coverage from independent reliable sources, just some passing mentions and a bio in a website he was associated with. Fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Montgomery County Public Schools (Maryland). Mz7 (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earle B. Wood Middle School[edit]

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

Non-notable middle school. Should be a redirect to the district, but another editor objected. So here we are. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL local coverage that does not suggest notability (even if the Washington Post is doing some of that local coverage). Only thing which got attention that wasn't local coverage was the fake gun incident which is not enough for demonstration of notability. Redirect to district page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT - as per WP:OUTCOMES middle or primary schools not generally notable Gbawden (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Montgomery County Public Schools. It's a nn institution, but a viable search parameter, and besides, that's what we generally do in this situation. John from Idegon (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very few middle schools are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Non-notable elementary school. Carrite (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of archers at the 2018 Invictus Games[edit]

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

Full of non-notable athletes. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC) Also nominating:[reply]

Comment this should be Archery at the 2018 Invictus Games if kept; I'm not sure there's enough coverage of this event to justify articles beyond 2018 Invictus Games. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a list of non-notable people. Maybe the article's creator should look at their talkpage too... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NLIST. Ajf773 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NLIST Chetsford (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the people listed are notable. --Michig (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mz7 (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Blagbrough[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS#Rugby_league - no mention in the article he has appeared in the required competitions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - clearly states he was capped for Huddersfield Giants, who play in arguably world best fully professional league in the sport, as did Sheffield Eagles and Leigh Centurions from the fully pro Championship Abcmaxx (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NOTINHERITED. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Four sources confirm that he has played in the SL for Huddersfield and Sheffield in the CC.Fleets (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professional sportsman who has played in one of the biggest leagues in the country. Clearly suitable for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shuvendu Panda[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:ANYBIO. Most of the citations don't look reliable and the Times of India citation is a mere mention of the subject, so I don't see WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same concerns as the PROD last month. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SHR
Delete ~~per SHR~~ as failing NFOOTY, one of the most basic requirements we have. ——SerialNumber54129 16:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted above, fails GNG and NFooty, Govvy (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 13:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vinit Singh[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Was not able to find a significant reliable coverage from secondary sources that is purely on Vinit Singh. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 16:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of sources dedicated to the subject Spiderone 13:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Wrestling Affiliates[edit]

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

No indication of notability in any reliable sources. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article exclusively uses primary sources, which are archived because they're all dead. I couldn't find any secondary sources.LM2000 (talk) 08:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources to establish notability. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Randi Brooks[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Boleyn (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced BLP for starters. Actor with a lengthy series of small appearances, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egg and chips[edit]

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

'Egg and chips' is no more notable than 'Ham, eggs and chips' or 'Sausage, eggs, chips and beans'. Or any number of different fry-up ingredients, such as bacon, black pudding, mushrooms, kippers and kidneys. The article also seems dedicated to showing that egg and chips is a working-class dish. It's no more working-class than toast and jam; it's just simple food that everyone eats. Reforming the article to remove this bias would render it no more than a stub; hence nominate for deletion. MrDemeanour (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, it is more notable than the others. Just the idea of having multiple eggs for a luxurious dish like "Ham, eggs and chips" is falling out of the particularly British, and post-war, era of the simple "egg and chips". This isn't an article about a culinary dish, it's about British culture. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article makes clear, with multiple references and quotes, that 'Egg and chips' meets WP:GNG. Nor is it "just simple food that everyone eats" - a quick google indicates that it is a British dish. There is an article on the full breakfast, to which 'fry-up' redirects - this is clearly not a full fry-up, and the article explains the cultural connotations. The nomination for deleting it simply asserts that the topic is not notable.
Keep. References demonstrate significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. It may be "no more working-class than toast and jam" -- whether or not WP:other stuff exists isn't all that relevant, but in any case we have articles for Jam sandwich (food), Peanut butter and jelly sandwich, Chicken and chips, Steak and eggs, Ham and eggs, Eggs and brains, Bangers and mash, Steak frites, Sausage and peppers, Biscuits and gravy, Bacon and cabbage, Climate change and potatoes, Liver and onions, Red beans and rice, so why not Egg and chips? -- Qwfp (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like many dishes it has cultural significance, as the references make clear. Keep. Rathfelder (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A WP:SNOW keep last time at AfD, and nothing about the current version suggests any reason to think differently about the subject, which is a clear pass of WP:GNG. Bakazaka (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 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. Nomination was withdrawn by the creator now that he nominated a correct article. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Egg and chips[edit]

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

'Egg and chips' is no more notable than 'Ham, eggs and chips' or 'Sausage, eggs, chips and beans'. Or any number of different fry-up ingredients, such as bacon, black pudding, mushrooms, kippers and kidneys. The article also seems dedicated to showing that egg and chips is a working-class dish. It's no more working-class than toast and jam; it's just simple food that everyone eats. Reforming the article to remove this bias would render it no more than a stub; hence nominate for deletion. MrDemeanour (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the article deleted, the template (and this discussion) needs to be on the article title, not the talk page. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Thanks - this is only my second afd nom - and I did the previous one entirely by hand (which was painful). MrDemeanour (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I withdraw this nomination; I have now nominated the actual article (is there more that I need to do to withdraw a nom?) MrDemeanour (talk) 14:45, 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 anyone wants the article userfied to improve / rewrite it, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cardno[edit]

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

This page is a straight-up copy-and-paste PR release. It's been tagged as such for 5 years. Given the lack of improvement, it is time to put it out of its misery. Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ even speedy I reckon. Blatant promo. At best WP:TNT. I have not gone looking but it would not surprise if was also copyvio. Aoziwe (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that the article has been fixed re blatant policy problems I am changing to keep on the basis of sufficient WP:NEXIST across (modern) multiple reliable secondary sources over a number of years to support WP:GNG, not always flattering to the company by the way. The article still needs a lot of work but there are IRSS to support an improved article. Aoziwe (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have not checked their content but there are many dozens, possibly even hundreds, of secondary source references to this company and-or its founders archived here. Aoziwe (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article to an earlier revision, before it was overwritten with promo which was indeed a copyvio of https://www.cardno.com/about-us/who-we-are/our-history/. G11 probably doesn't apply anymore. I've also request revision deletion.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have WP:REVDEL-d the obvious WP:COPYVIO insertion of text from https://www.cardno.com/about-us/who-we-are/our-history. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Probably passes WP:NCORP, due to significant coverage here, here, here here, and here. Due to the company going back to World War II, there's probably a lot more that's just buried behind a bunch of unreliable junk because Google's terrible at filtering by how reliable a source is. As mentioned above, I've removed the copyvio/promotional material by reverting to an earlier revision, and I'm doing some more cleanup.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 12:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TNT it. PR page owned by spammers, history is still full of copy paste spam. Get rid of it all and let someone independent start over. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:42, 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 12:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shirt58 (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Duffbeerforme. We shouldn't be asked to spend time rescuing articles created by COI editors (who are probably being paid for their work). Delete and let someone else write a proper encyclopaedia article. SpinningSpark 18:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per duffbeerforme, SpinningSpark, and WP:BOGOF. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There's a general consensus that although the article needs cleanup, it is a notable topic per WP:GNG and should not be deleted. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Data center management[edit]

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

There is some sort of notability in this article, but in it's current form it looks like an original review, related to specific companies. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article could be improved, but no doubt that this is a notable topic.Rathfelder (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic meets WP:GNG. Also, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP; just because it needs work doesn't mean it should be deleted. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the topic itself is notable and while it is focused on a few companies, it's not focused in such a way to make it advertorial, just needing of improvement. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic, although could perhaps be covered in Data center. Deletion rationale not at all convincing. Not every perceived issue with an article requires an AfD. --Michig (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic meets WP:GNG. and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP--DBig Xrayᗙ 13:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The World's Healthiest Foods[edit]

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

Advertisment for a diet book. No evidence at all of notability of the book or its author. No independent coverage at all. The only "reference" is a link to copy of obvious marketing copy from the book's publisher. Tagged for refimprove for 3 years without improvement. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 10:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 10:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 10:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK by my searching. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The user who nominated this page for deletion meant to simply report certain revisions to be reviewed and RD1 applied if copyright violations existed. Closing this AfD, as the wrong process was simply used. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroko Kasahara[edit]

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

I would like to request revision deletion of former editions of this page, because of copyrights violation. (all edits have been already reverted) These edits are very similar to ja:LTA:203; who usually appear at articles about voice actors and Tokusatsu(one of techniques about Japanese film) and do copyrights violation such as copying from articles of Japanese Wikipedia without attriburion, news articles, and a lyric.

On the whole, all edits by IP users after 03:46, 29 December 2017 are unauthorised reproductions and have fear of copyrights violation. Details are below. It is very complex and required reading Japanese, but I would appreciate if you co-operate checking and voting.

at 03:46, 03:47, 03:48, 03:50 and 04:07, 29 December 2017: ja:財団X#登場作品
at 04:10, 29 December 2017: ja:笠原弘子#出演 (Japanese article of Hiroko Kasahara)
at 09:13 - 09:22, 30 December 2017: ja:笠原弘子 (Hiroko Kasahara) Sections: 経歴、人物、エピソード、出演
at 09:25 - 09:30, 30 December 2017: ja:笠原弘子 (Hiroko Kasahara) Sections: 経歴、人物、エピソード、出演、その他
at 09:55, 30 December 2017 and 13:12, 4 January 2018: ja:笠原弘子 (Hiroko Kasahara) Sections: 経歴、人物、エピソード、出演、その他 and ja:宮村優子 (声優)#エピソード (Japanese article of Yūko Miyamura)
at 12:13, 8 Febrary 2018: a NTV News 24 (a news article by Nippon TV, reported the death of Shunsuke Ikeda)
at 22:25, 1 March 2018: ja:爆竜戦隊アバレンジャー (Japanese Article of Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger)
at 22:28 - 22:30, 22:33, 1 March 2018: ja:爆竜戦隊アバレンジャー (Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger) and ja:百獣戦隊ガオレンジャー (Japanese article of Hyakujuu Sentai Gaoranger)
at 22:38 -22:39 and 22:43, 1 March 2018: ja:爆竜戦隊アバレンジャー (Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger) and ja:百獣戦隊ガオレンジャー (Hyakujuu Sentai Gaoranger), ja:ウルトラマンダイナ (Japanese article of Ultraman Dyna)
at 05:37, 26 March 2018 and 11:11, 11 May 2018: a review comment at amazon.co.jp (Video of Rica Fukami)
at 05:41, 26 March 2018: a review comment at amazon.co.jp (Rica Fukami) and an article by Cinema Today (a news article by Cinema Today (ja), reported the death of Ryūtarō Nakamura)
at 11:58, 23 April 2018: a web page of Toei Video(Please see Introduction section)
at 10:06, 11 June 2018: a web page by an ordinary person
at 07:04, 14 July 2018: a blog by an ordinary person
at 09:54, 27 July 2018: a lyric of Battle Fever J (link)--郊外生活Kogaiseikatsu (talk,contribs) 10:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @郊外生活: It seems like you want to keep the article, so placing {{Copyvio-revdel}} at the top of the article (with a link to the thorough evidence above) should get the attention of an admin who can address the history issue. Bakazaka (talk) 19:24, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Craig (education innovator and investor)[edit]

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

Written as advertisement, no notability, no sources to demonstrate notability. Has been reduced to redirect many times, but is always rolled back, so that we need an AfD to make a decision. Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Continually recreated by a recent SPA editor. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Written as a promotional piece. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional, and not properly referenced as passing WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lalit Narayan Jha[edit]

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

Non-notable individual with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:JOURNALIST. The awards are not notable and most of the current sources are not reliable. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. He belongs to a fringe language domain which makes it more tough to attain notability and thus, I was willing to bend a bit backwards. But nothing resembling significant/quasi-significant coverage about him/his reporting can be located in RS.∯WBG^converse 16:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above Spiderone 09:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1996–97 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)[edit]

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

How does this topic meet WP:NOTABILITY? Has been unsourced for 12 years and other sites I could find with this information were wikis/mirror sites. Taking to AfD rather than prod as is part of a series. Boleyn (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as well as the articles for all other years. I find it hard to believe how it has already survived three AfD's: [24] [25] and [26] but absolutely nothing has been done to provide reliable sources, nor any indication of notability, historical significance or importance backed up by secondary sources. This is considering the first AfD was in the 2007 so there has been at least eleven (twelve according to Boleyn) years for somebody to sort this out. So many of the 'keep' arguments appear to be emotionally charged WP:ILIKEIT votes and through so much undue weight which led to them being kept by consensus. But the policies on notability and verifibility are very clear so in my opinion if the articles cannot be sourced they should all be removed from Wikipedia or transferred to another more suitable Wiki. Ajf773 (talk) 09:20, 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. There is sufficient consensus that there is improved secondary sourcing sufficient to provide notability and that the article is distinct from Coca-cola and warrants its own article (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. Almost every source is primary. There are plenty of bottling companies, the only notable thing about this one it's large, but that doesn't warrant an entire article. That fact could be a simple mention in the articles on Coca-Cola and/or Charlotte, North Carolina. Surachit (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable, verifiable, independent sources. Cabayi (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy (reactions) 19:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coca-Cola bottling as a topic is huge economically, perhaps as much as 1/2 of the economic value of Coca-Cola, and is distinct from Coca-Cola the brand. Offhand, this so far seems like an ignorant deletion nomination argument, no offense intended. Perhaps it would be possible to merge/redirect this to a more broad discussion about Coca-Cola bottling. --Doncram (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note there is plenty of discussion about Coca-Cola bottlers in the Coca-Cola article, but there seems to be no List of Coca-Cola bottlers or other overview article about Coca-Cola bottling. C-C just manufactures concentrate and sells it to bottlers. There is Category:Coca-Cola bottlers with 20+ members. There needs to be an overview article and/or list-article about bottling. About this one bottler, it should not be deleted outright. At worst it should be merged/redirected to a list-article, which would surely be notable. I am willing to start a list-article. So, one way to resolve this AFD would be to close in favor of a Merge to that list-article, which leaves homework to be done. But leaving some homework is okay, is done often with Merge decisions (though not usually with a redlink merge target). However overall I think this article can still be kept outright. --Doncram (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Wikipedia article does not make it clear (though the 10-K filing linked from the article does make it clear) this is the company publicly traded as COKE. It is traded on NASDAQ, as opposed to The Coca-Cola company, which is traded on NYSE stock symbol KO. Its market valuation is $1.58 billion U.S. (as opposed to KO whose market valuation is $198.75 B, much larger, yes, but still you try to start a 1.58 billion company). COKE's TTM is 4.59 billion. See Yahoo Finance on COKE. There is VAST VAST independent reliable literature about it. For example news reports linked from this NASDAQ-supplied links to news coverage, including Zacks financial analysts' reports on upcoming quarterly earnings forecasts. This is slam-dunk absolute "Keep". There do exist some Wikipedia editors (not necessarily those voting delete above because it has not been obvious this is in fact COKE) who hold that huge publicly traded companies are not necessarily notable, which is crazy. In fact all of NYSE and a great number of NASDAQ companies including this one and AAPL (Apple, Inc.) are completely obviously notable, by dint of vast vast coverage/news/literature about them, because in fact they are huge publicly traded companies. If you want to delete this company from wikipedia I think you must delete all companies having less than 4.59 billion annual sales, so, for example, kiss all elements of Category:Restaurants goodbye and reject List of restaurants as there is no way that all restaurants could add up to that amount. And delete almost all other businesses in Wikipedia, too. --Doncram (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC) 18:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument made by User:Doncram. Needs improvement, as do most of our articles. Suggest that editors look at discussions in books, and at the several notable legal cases involving this company. Searchbar is useful, but searching on "Coca Cola Bottling" is also helpful, as is remembering that this corporation was more prominent in the 20th century, making archive searches useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note also tha tmany of the bottling plants were architecturally notable [27].E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coca-Cola bottlers include some of the largest companies in the world, including, of course, the company that people want to delete here, namely, COKE. COKE's market cap is $1,551,905,744.^[1] I'd like to buy the world a Coke, but just my investments are tied and can't quite lay off $1.55 billion. Is Wikipedia about to start deleting all companies that are less than $2 billion? I would be in agreement with deleting this Coca-Cola bottlers only if we deleted all other companies this size and smaller. Coca-Cola Bottlers Consolidated is not only the largest CC bottler in these United States, it has 16,500 employees, and sales (revenue) of $4.32 billion per year. Lemme put it this way: Coca-Cola Bottlers Consolidated is larger than H&R Block, for example, by revenue and by market cap. Anyone thinking of deleting the H&R Block page? Look, I've added a source or two to the COKE page. Also, per WP:ORGIN with the sources currently in the article, the article meets notability as required by WP:CORP. - XavierItzm (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/coke

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If a company with a yearly revenue of over 4.2 billion dollars isn't notable, than I don't know what is. Notable doesn't have to be well-known, as that's a highly subjective term. What notable does mean is that an article could be made about the topic with existing information. As stated above, this company's literally worth more than H&R block, and nearly the size of AMD or EA. None of those companies should have their articles deleted, that much I am certain we can agree on. This company is no different, as it is the world's largest bottler for COKE. As such, this article is a prime example of the type of content that should be kept, not needlessly deleted. SuperChris (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the original objections were "Almost every source is primary" and "no reliable, verifiable, independent sources." Have you seen the article lately? Here are its current sources, among others:

etc. XavierItzm (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bhojpore[edit]

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

WP:DEL5,WP:DEL6,WP:DEL7,WP:DEL8,WP:NPOV,WP:V,WP:N The sources listed only discuss a controversial proposed state in India and the content of the article is largely taken from Purvanchal with the name changed. Kluball (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no problem with Wikipedia having an article on the movement to form a state for Bhojpuri speakers if it can be properly sourced. However, this article does not discuss that at all. It is a copypaste of Purvanchal, presumably done as a WP:POVFORK to establish the editor's preferred POV name of the region (a copypaste done without attribution, by the way, making it also a WP:COPYVIO). If it really is a verifiable alternate name for the region, then that can be added to the Purvanchal article. This page should be WP:TNT deleted with no prejudice against an article on the political movement being created. SpinningSpark 15:37, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Governance without government[edit]

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

Page created by a CU-blocked sock; the sock's claim that It is a paradigm opposing modern democracy. doesn't appear to be supported by any sources. It doesn't appear to be about any coherent topic beyond what is already described at Governance (which is not focused purely on governance by governments). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At this point for me, this article is convincing, and I am leaning toward Keep until better arguments are presented here. The sources are clearly distinguishing this term as a concept on its own; there are too many to cite here. Moreover, I still don't see this term being fully addressed in the umbrella article for Governance. Am I missing something here? Why is this article here in AfD? Really, I mean. Den... (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is clearly a notable topic and is not so long that problems cannot be dealt with easily by cleanup. The following books use the phrase to describe governance on a world scale and have it either in the book title or a chapter heading:
- Rosenau & Czempiel Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics
- Young, Governance in World Affairs
- Bell & Hindmoor, Rethinking Governance: The Centrality of the State in Modern Society
There is also,
- Kiflemariam, Governance Without Government: Community Managed Irrigation in Eritrea
but that may be tangential to this article – hard to say as it is not accessible online. On the other hand, this book also discusses the principle in a way that is clearly related to the subject of our article,
- Qarmout, Delivering Aid Without Government: International Aid and Civil Society
Scholarly papers on the subject include,
- Peters & Pierre, "Governance Without Government? Rethinking Public Administration", Journal of Public Administration and Theory
- Rhodes "The New Governance: Governing without Government", Political Studies
- Menkhaus, "Governance without Government in Somalia", International Security
- Raeymaekers, Menkhaus, Vlassenroot, "State and non-state regulation in African protracted crises: governance without government?", Africa Focus
- Albert, "Governance without government? Reflections on the orders of the European Union", 1997 Conference of the European Communities Studies Association
- Holsti, "Governance Without Government: Polyarchy in Nineteenth-Century European International Politics", Major Texts on War, the State, Peace, and International Order
- Börzel & Risse, "Governance without a state: Can it work?", Regulation & Governance
- Bell & Hindmoor, "Governance without government? The case of the Forest Stewardship Council", Public Administration

Just the sheer number of independent researchers that have addressed this subject is enough to show that we should definitely have an article on Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 14:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per User:Spinningspark. BTW, what could be done to minimize the number of AfDs done too hastily, which have not checked sources properly? Den... (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This wasn't hasty. It's created by a banned user, it doesn't talk about any of the topics mentioned above (which seem to be several different concepts, and based on my reading of the sources is a WP:CFORK of governance (specifically the section on "Private governance"); the semi-anarchy in parts of Somalia is very different from the European Union (which one of the articles seems to believe is not a government). There is no content here worth saving apart from a WP:DICTDEF, and it's unclear what that dictionary definition should even be. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the subjects of an edited volume text by Cambridge University Press here provides very intense coverage. I don't think that all of SpinningSpark's references are fully relevant, as "Governance without a state" could be perceived as parallel but not supportive, but much of the rest of his finds were enough for me even before I found this book (which is also in his list of sources). Isingness (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus here is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bollygarch[edit]

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

Pointless article about a term used to describe Indian business people. Talks less about the term but more about prominent people to whom the term hasn't even been applied. More suited for Wiktionary. As User:1812ahill says on the Talk Page:

This article reads more like 'UK property portfolio of rich Indians' or something similar, on the basis of a newspaper wanting to grab a headline by coining a new word. Pointless.

Gotitbro (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - maybe good enough for Wiktionary but certainly not notable enough to pass GNG here Spiderone 13:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur, unlike the term "Oligarch" there hasn't been sufficient coverage of the term itself beyond being used as a simple tag-line. In effect it's a string of non SIG-COVs. Wikipedia is not the place for it. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rural Okresi[edit]

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

This article is incomprehensible. ‘Rural’ is an English word. ‘Okresi’ is apparently an Azeri word (uncertain). The article is a sort of half-dictionary definition, unsourced, and it’s hard to see how a reader would benefit from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 16:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding any notable usages of this specific term. Searching the term in quotes on Google just comes up with this article and a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors/forks. Appears to be orphaned (aside from links related to this AfD and other stuff in the Wikipedia and user spaces), which normally wouldn't be an issue in and of itself, but the page history suggests this article has been orphaned since at least 2010. All in all, what I'm seeing suggests that this term is clearly not notable. Aspening (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless a source is forthcoming. The only entry for okresi in Administrative Subdivisions of Countries: A Comprehensive World Reference is for the Czech Republic, which is linguistically about as far as it is possible to get from a Turkic language. SpinningSpark 13:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Seems to be orphaned as there is no much source related to it,so fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent reliable sources.Vinodbasker (talk) 15:21, 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 soft delete (per low participation). WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Captain and Casey Show[edit]

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

Non notable show that clearly fails WP:GNG. It went through a WP:DEPROD because the deprodder said it may pass WP:NTV, And yes, it is more likely to be notable as a cable show. But it also says that presence or absence of secondary reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the said program. Something this subject does not have. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but only because we don't seem to have a List of programs broadcast by Fuel TV article any longer. It was notable on that network, but sadly not as time has gone by. Nate • (chatter) 00:09, 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 19:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:30, 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 soft delete (per low participation). WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Connock[edit]

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

A directory-like listing on a nn individual. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Francescatuckett with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above. Delete for non-notability. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:29, 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 soft delete (per low participation). WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Nayaka[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NFILM Spiderone 13:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tai Kwok Yuen[edit]

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

A non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks and very minor passing mentions. Furthermore, the article is entirely reliant on primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Filter out namesake in Taiwan, his name only appear in source that closely related to the church (thus not independent secondary source), or routine mentioned as the tour guide in a news article for the church building. Matthew hk (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:BIO. - STSC (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaanus Silla[edit]

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

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE. There's some coverage about the subject regarding his religious and professional pursuits, but they are published by official LDS Church media such as Ensign and New Era, which are primary sources that are not usable to establish notability. WP:BEFORE searches turned up this book source, but it's 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. Otherwise, other than this source, which provides a bit of coverage, sources available in independent reliable sources is limited to passing mentions and name checks. Ultimately, the subject does not meet notability guidelines to qualify for an article, because they have not received said necessary coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:27, 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 no consensus. After two full relistings and then some, no consensus has arisen herein. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Bernard (writer)[edit]

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

I don't see in the article that the person meets the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. His bio are yet deleted from the French and Russian versions of wiki (see also here about offline pressure on the French admin involved in deleting the article). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The french Deletion Review explains that the article was summarily deleted then salted by a few admins for failing their version of WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not a good sign he was deleted from other Wikipedias, but I'm more concerned about the lack of significant coverage in independent sources. On the other hand, I don't if those awards show notability.Sandals1 (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was awarded chevalier de l'ordre de la couronne, and he's been on television [28]. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 17:56, 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. Michig (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Air India Flight 101 (2018)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not news - while this did make the news and the are references and was an obviously tense situation it hardly requires an article to itself. The article as it is is struggling for significant detail. It could be merged into another article (Air India?) but honestly even there it would struggle to meet the scope advice given in WP:AIRCRASH Andrewgprout (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS just a bad day at the office and more importantly it landed safely and nobody was harmed. MilborneOne (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable incident on non-notable route.Charles (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How often do aircraft instruments fail? It's just another day at the office for a pilot to deal with it. SpinningSpark 11:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Assistant pilot slightly alarmed. Not news and definitely not a Wikipedia article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insignificant airline event. WP:NOTNEWS. Ajf773 (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only way it could be keep is if the investigation results in changes to regulations, a very slim chance. see AC 759 discussion. Keep the article in a sandbox just in case.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Not a notable event WP:NOTNEWS as there was no damage and the situation was wisely tackled,so can not be called a complete accident.Vinodbasker (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reason it made more than very local news (the plane wasn’t even really damaged) is because of the day and city it happened at. Breeding ground for conspiracy theories. Kingsif (talk) 00:29, 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.

[1] ttps://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/coke

[1]