Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 June	29 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Unsourced article, with apparently no independent, reliable sources available. Clear consensus to delete as failing our notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alfaaz[edit]

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

An article about a festival at the Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati. Despite the article's grandiose claims, there don't appear to be any sources at all, while the linked official website suggests there haven't been any new instalments after the second festival in 2009. Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, which has a rather lengthy section on its festivals, doesn't mention it either. I prodded the article with this rationale, but Kvng objected, suggesting instead a merge to Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati#Annual festivals. But I don't see any content worth merging, and we can't set out to write new content because of the aforementioned absence of sources. Redirecting without merging (a lazy alternative to deletion) also won't work as "Alfaaz" can refer to various entities mentioned here and there in the encyclopedia, and readers looking for them are best served by the search results. – Uanfala (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ - I have added a trimmed blurb to Indian_Institute_of_Technology_Guwahati#Annual_festivals. I reject the argument that everything added to the encyclopedia needs immaculate sourcing. ~Kvng (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- And I've reverted you addition. Noteworthiness is a lower bar than notability but there's a threshold there nevertheless. I don't see how an obscure student festival that apparently only ran in 2008 and 2009 is worth mentioning in an article about the university. – Uanfala (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Also, that article used to have a mention of Alfaaz (along with several other festivals not otherwise covered in the text), but it was removed in 2014 [1]. – Uanfala (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to redirect to now that Uanfala has reverted, with good reason (previous removal), my proposed redirect target. ~Kvng (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : No sources and no notability to have a stand alone page definitely. I don't feel it should be even redirected. It might have made sense to include about it in the university page but if it has been removed in past already, doesn't make sense to repeat that. Exploreandwrite (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Article because it is not notable itself and has not supported by secondary sources.Forest90 (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus that the the subject fails WP:NCORP. Just Chilling (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acuro Organics Limited[edit]

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

This article was deleted as an A7 by Casliber, but restored after a request from the article creator. I believe the subject fails WP:NCORP. The only sources are the company's own website and a listing that doesn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. I found the company's name mentioned in passing in a few other sources—for example here and here—but nothing close to significant coverage. I explained to the article creator on my talk page about the need to add independent sources, but they have not responded in over a week. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like nom I couldn't find anything more than a line or so, certainly nothing that satisfied both Sig Cov and Corpdepth. WP:NCORP clearly not satisfied. No obvious redirect target. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable organizations and companies. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. this article should be deleted. -Nahal^(T) 10:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject is not notable and fails WP:NCORP. Barca (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough as an organization WP:NCORP. AuthorWiki99 (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Article, its subject is not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoto Iguchi[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is signed to FC Ryukyu. Since he has yet to play a match for them, this does not satisfy WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so a future playing is not a factor nor is signing and not playing. What is a factor is that one sentence pseudo biographical dictionary entries fail multiple policies and guidelines. Otr500 (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not being a crystal ball, the only way around that is passing GNG, which this page doesn’t. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON ~Kvng (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above. WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. William2001^(talk) 05:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Article because it's not notable and also fail WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grip Pod[edit]

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

Essentially an advertisement for this product; article makes no claim of encyclopedic notability and it is certainly no more notable than it was on the last two occasions it has been deleted. Glenfarclas (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable independent sources. The sources are publications by the company, online catalogs and an advertorial. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - so the SD is because I believe the article is unambiguously promotional, but since we're in AfD that can be decided here. I also feel there is notability deletion justification as well. Products, if not includable under a parent company's article, are also bound by WP:NCORP. Putting aside online catalogues/press releases, there are sources such as hawaii reporter. However, I'm unsure about independent/reliable to at least some degree. Certainly I didn't find the multiple high quality sources needed to pass NCORP. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is to keep with the necessary clean-up as a subsequent editorial action. Just Chilling (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy of Fiji[edit]

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

This article was fairly ridiculous to begin with, but recently it's become an absurd mish-mash about bird poop ("scattering and landing of dirt by a rooster or chicken") and the British royal family being descended from Fijians ("According to local folklore"). Time to consign it to oblivion. DrKay (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DrKay (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. DrKay (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove all the garbage Saqiwa has added over the last month to the Indigenous Monarchy section. Without that, there's some useful and historical information that should be kept. We've got RS for the info that was there before Saqiwa started working on the article. --Kbabej (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic is definitely notable but the article is full of unsourced material. It needs quite a lot of work. Not sure I can face it..... Mccapra (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: Couldn't we just remove Saqiwa's contributions and pare it down to where it was? --Kbabej (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I was thinking of searching for sources to support what they have added, which would be quite a lengthy task I imagine. Your suggestion would be much simpler. Mccapra (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid topic, but remove all edits from Saqiwa.-gadfium 01:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move all of Saqiwa's stuff to BJAODN if felt desired. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Kbabej (talk). --SalmanZ (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly valid topic, albeit in need of a clean-up. Atchom (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is notable, but do follow the suggestions above. William2001^(talk) 05:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Article, its subject is well sourced subject.Forest90 (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC) - comment made after close but moved here for completeness. Just Chilling (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Mice[edit]

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

Corporate page is based on WP:OR and company does not pass WP:GNG. There are no references listed and all external links are to small hobby blogs and websites, almost all of which are dead or broken. A BEFORE returns the following:

newspapers.com: 0 results
JSTOR: 0 results
Google News: 0 results
Google Books 0 results
Chetsford (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Borderline spam at best. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Per nom. Article has no reference , fails WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non notable company, products and producers. Ajf773 (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per all of the above. Topic clearly fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Excellent job done by nom. Agree with above. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. WP:NCORP. William2001^(talk) 05:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Article, it's not notable and fails GNG.Forest90 (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Smile[edit]

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

Non-notable startup/company, virtually no coverage for the term "Dr. Smile" and what I can find isn't even about this Dr. Smile. Praxidicae (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - likely undisclosed paid-for spam. I have blocked the creator for this reason. MER-C 16:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many reliable sources and its notable in Europe, I think different laguage source is not a problem. Use the search term „DrSmile“ - please review this sources * Tagesspiegel [2] * Handelsblatt [3]* Morgenpost [4] * [5] and many more [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.225.195.2 (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In order to establish notability, not only do references need to be from "reliable sources" but they also need to meet the criteria of "independent content" as per WP:ORGIND guidelines. Those references don't - they're a collection of churnalism articles. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is spam. References are the usual churnalism or PRIMARY sources. Fails WP:SPIP, GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 21:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Sounds like advertisement. William2001^(talk) 05:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 16:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Panniwala Ruldu[edit]

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

No sources; poorly formatted. Only way I see it staying is due to it being a village. Remagoxer (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Remagoxer (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes. It's a village. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it can be verified through at least one reliable source, not confusing with other village; then it should not be deleted. But if it cant verified, or we cant be sure of that particular "Panniwala Ruldu"; then it should be deleted. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source that I added to the article before my previous comment, which is cast-iron reliable, verifies the existence of this village in this block in this district. I don't know what further evidence you need. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking in general Phil

I apologise for the misunderstanding.
I hadnt run a search/verification for the article by then. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sourcing by Phil is somewhat...proxy-like, but I'm inclined to accept its reliability, and thus GEOLAND is met. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: what does it mean by proxy in this context? —usernamekiran(talk) 21:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernamekiran: in that the source (afaict quickly) isn't about the village itself (but a school there, I think). However it's location is thus established by a reliable source. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep: passes WP:GEOLAND as a village that can be verified per Phil's comment above. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I suggest/request @Remagoxer: to close the discussion, as any verifiable settlement is de facto notable per WP:GEOLAND. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The village clearly exists, and the relevant details can be found at here (archive link: [7]) or at page nos. 66–71 of this District Census Handbook.

PS: Details regarding Indian villages are easily available at the official website of 2011 Census of India, i.e. at censusindia.gov.in. One can directly search any village at here, or can download the relevant District Census Handbook from here (by clicking on the relevant link under Part-B-ebook(CRC)). - NitinMlk (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Exactly. It's a village! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GEOLAND. William2001^(talk) 05:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject fails to meet WP:NGRIDIRON and that, separately, the article lacks the in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marquez North[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill college football player who does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NGRIDIRON. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is fine. Largely irrelevant. Had potential when created a long time ago. Red Director (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON as he has neither appeared in a professional game nor had a notable college career. Appearing on SC Top 10 may have spawned a bit of significant coverage, but the article is poorly sourced with routine coverage. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Wiki article states that he was the No. 1 prospect in North Carolina out of high school, but he never fulfilled expectations. No conference honors or even team honors. Does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. Also not finding significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as needed to pass under WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. William2001^(talk) 05:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Casa Aramara[edit]

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

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG Sekuhigh (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)— Sekuhigh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not sure how the nom came to the conclusion that this doesn't meet GNG when it has received significant coverage from independent sources. Even if you ignore the pieces in the article that mention it in passing and have more focus on the celebrities there, there are still articles that are in-depth more about the property. Besides what's already in the article, Architectural Digest and Bravo articles go into detail about this property.[8][9] It looks like it was owned by an awful person and has a lot of vapid celebrities who stay there, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to ignore something that's notable.Oakshade (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Oakshade, basically, due to Architectural Digest and other coverage, though we don't have to use negative adjectives about persons who can afford to stay there. It may even be encyclopedically helpful to instruct innkeeper-wannabes what is necessa≈ry to command high rates. :) I would like to see more about the apparently open architecture and what makes the place "work" architecturally appealing, rather than about it being attractive for having WiFi down to the beach and staff of 30 and such, which doesn't seem that special. But it seems notable, whether we completely like the current article or not. --Doncram (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reluctantly - it does pass our guidelines. I just hatcheted some of the more egregious text. SportingFlyer T·C 03:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject passes GNG easily Lightburst (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boxie24[edit]

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

Non notable firm. Refs are essential PR, repeating each other. No corresponding article in deWP, which covers truly notable German companies quite fully DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some of the references appear to be okay, particularly those from what seem to be established daly newspapers. In some, Boxie24 is covered as part of the overall self storage market. Most of the articles include a byline, which wouldn't be the case if the newspaper reprinted a press release. I found comparable coverage of the Canadian self-storage industry here (Boxie24 is not mentioned, and does not operate in Canada), and that's in The Globe and Mail, a newspaper of record, which I think demonstrates that other self-storage companies can be notable. The Arabic-language reference ("Emirates Airline and Cricks celebrate successful partnership") does not mention Boxie24 at all. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as paid-for spam. I have blocked the author for undisclosed paid editing. MER-C 15:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, refs fail the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of 10cc Live[edit]

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

the album is in fact a simple rearranged tracklinsting of the Alive (10cc album) (you have to just listen to both) and was only released as a promo. no point in a separate page as all the necessary information can be reflected in the release section of the original Alive album Twistandshout28 (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Basically per WP:EXIST and lack of coverage in reliable sources per WP:SIGCOV. The nominator's idea for mentioning this album in the article for the original 10cc album from which it was derived is a good one, but even that may not be necessary for a quickie promo that was immediately forgotten. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G11. I have also speedied Preparing People to Lead Extraordinary Lives. Just Chilling (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago's Jesuit University[edit]

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

A nickname for a college that is broad, not even mentioned in the main article, and has no sources. The creator also attended the school. Fails WP:NOT#DICTIONARY AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete University marketing tags simply don't need articles here. Nate • (chatter) 00:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is a clear fail of WP:NMUSIC. Just Chilling (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maniac Spider Trash[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet any of the WP:NMUSIC criteria, and sources cited are mostly routine. A 2010 AfD resulted in delete and nothing has changed since then.Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite its great name, I couldn't find anything reliable that had more than bare word mentions. If it had had one more notable singer it would have made it in via criterion 6, but alas no. I considered advocating to redirect for Wednesday 13, but I don't feel that is a reasonable (or particularly like) one. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the available sources do not provide the necessary in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG and there was no support for the argument that running for national office establishes notability. Just Chilling (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Bayes[edit]

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

Speedy was declined due to the fact that he was nominated again by this marginally nominal party in 2020, which does nothing to further his WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a fringe party's candidate for president of the United States is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts the candidate from having to have solid sources to get him over WP:GNG — but three of the five sources here are from a non-notable WordPress blog, and the only reliable sourcing present at all is a couple of pieces of routine municipal election coverage in his hometown newspaper in the context of having been an unsuccessful candidate for city council, which is not enough in and of itself either. To be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, he would need to show a lot more nationalized media coverage, in the context of his presidential candidacy rather than the city council stuff, than this is showing. Even at the presidential level, getting nominated as a candidate is still not in and of itself an automatic notability freebie that exempts a person from having to get covered by the media for it. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4 as already deleted at AFD and nothing having really changed. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The question for any political candidate for the chief executive position in a country is whether the subject has solid sourcing to pass WP:GNG. As I write, the sourcing is not in the article, but there is a fair number of sources that exist that cover the subject, including this piece in the Guardian about the Prohibition Party, this profile in Mississippi Today, and this feature produced by WITF-FM. And unlike other commentators, I believe Ballot Access News is a notable website/newsletter. While I would agree that there may not be enough out there to write a featured article about the subject, there subject does meet WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those three sources just glancingly namecheck Bayes' existence in the process of not being about him, and the one that is actually "about" him to any non-trivial degree still isn't about him enough to single-handedly vault him over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only non-trivial "more than just a namecheck" source in play. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most of the sources do just namecheck Bayes' presence on the 2016 ticket. However, I think that being a presidential or vice presidential candidate on ticket that is on the general election ballot in multiple states (or on a federal ballot outside of the US), meets the definition of notability (under the spirit of WP:NPOL [and similar to any state-wide or province-wide elected legislator]) and as such, all we need is minimal sourcing that the person exists and holds the position. (And yes, this is different than the position I hold for unelected candidates below the presidential level).

There is nothing controversial about the content within the contested article. All of the information is properly sourced and there is some more information that could be added (from local and other notable news organizations/websites). By running for a national office, the individual has forgone being a low-profile individual. At minimum, the page should be redirected to Prohibition_Party#Electoral_history as have other Prohibition Party Vice Presidential nominees. --Enos733 (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That is very slim argument. I can't see them getting more coverage as time passes. They are at the extreme fringe of political reality, really too far out for me. The fact they only had 5600 odd votes and that was in a good year. Very tenuous. scope_creep^Talk 21:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete name checking does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As already deleted at AFD and nothing having really changed. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yup, does not pass WP:GNG. William2001^(talk) 05:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Church of St. Elizabeth of Hungary in Łódź[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. While well-written, nothing to indicate the notability of this church building, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage about the building to pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete - Nothing showed up in my WP:BEFORE. Weak keep per sources found below. FOARP (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a discussion on the article's talk page but the nominator did not participate but instead just rushed to slap deletion templates on the article, contrary to WP:ATD, WP:BITE, WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. The main difficulty with the place is that it's in Poland and so will be mainly covered in Polish-language sources. There's a linked article on the Polish-language Wikipedia. That contains a source and I'm inclined to follow their lead. The worst case would be merger into some page about Łódź as that main article currently doesn't seem to say anything about its churches. Andrew D. (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is fairly obviously in large part a machine translation of the Polish Wikipedia's pl:Kościół i klasztor św. Elżbiety Węgierskiej w Łodzi and there is a source cited at pl:Kościół i klasztor św. Elżbiety Węgierskiej w Łodzi#Bibliografia, which the translator did not copy over for some reason. So did either of the people who turned up no sources look at the one cited? And did anyone else think to look for the name in Polish? I put in the name of the church and the name of the architect and started turning up things like articles in Wyborcza about making this a registered monument so its owners cannot redesign and rebuild the roof, as they want to (explaining the scaffolding in the photograph). So it seems to be the case that a more thorough search for sources and evaluation of the ones that we already have is needed. That said, this is quite a bad machine translation, whose English is broken and downright gibberish in places. Uncle G (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried using the Polish name (which seems quite different) but don't have any fluency in the language and so couldn't make much sense of the results. Andrew D. (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Polish page has two links both of which aren't independent RS's. The remaining reference is Klasztory bernardyńskie, pod red. H.E. Wyczawskiego, Kalwaria Zebrzydowska 1985, which I am not able to consult to see if it is WP:SIGCOV but in any event is not enough, by itself, to sustain notability. FOARP (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's actually Klasztory bernardyńskie w Polsce w jej granicach historycznych by Hieronim Eugeniusz Wyczawski [pl], a 681 page book on Franciscan monasteries in Poland. It seems worth checking. Uncle G (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Yes, it's not the largest or oldest church in Łódź but with couple of additional sources it could be a decent stub.--Darwinek (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So what you are actually saying is that it doesn't meet notability criteria, but it could at some point in the future, with good references which have been searched for but not found?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is saying the place is in fact Wikipedia notable, which I agree with based on considerable evidence above that documentation about the place exists. It does not matter that we do not have Polish-speaking editors and we do not currently have the sources available online. We do not need those; it is reasonable to judge that sources exist. --Doncram (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my response just above to Onel5969, informed by multiple comments above establishing that sources most probably do exist. Also, you cannot force other editors to improve the article immediately to your satisfaction; it is established well enough that the article could be improved, and that is all that matters. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If editors are convinced it exists then I say Keep. There are other Church(es) of St. Elizabeth of Hungary in other locales, so I will accept the source in this article. Here is another more far flung parish - in Farmville, North Carolina, USA (believe it or not) - [10] - (found it on a web search). It seems she gets around. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - so the new standard, based upon ZERO WP policies, is that if something exists, it passes notability criteria. Wow. Bravo. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. If we believe that a place is notable, including that there exists significant coverage about it, whether one uninformed editor has found that coverage, or can read the language, or can comprehend it, or not, then we Keep the article. That is per Wikipedia policies and guidelines and principles, and no fake outrage changes that. --Doncram (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's an argument which shouldn't be used in AfD discussions, "comments above establishing that sources most probably do exist" - see WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Simply existing does not meet WP:SIGCOV. There are literally thousands of churches which exist, but which are not notable. --comment by Onel5969 (?)

Rubbish rubbish. What you link to is an essay, or in fact a summary conclusion from full essay Wikipedia:But there must be sources!, and we are not bound by it. That essay is about moronic level unsupported/uninformed/likely-wrong assertions that sources must exist. Here, it is appropriate to assert, with good reason, that there exists adequate coverage. And you are just wrong to assert that an article must be deleted because you don't like its current state. --Doncram (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia:Notability (churches) was a failed proposal so we just have the short paragraph at WP:NCHURCH and the general WP:GNG to fall on with. My GBooks and Gscholar search for ""św. Elżbiety w Łodzi" did not yield any hits, ditto for "św. Elżbiety Węgierskiej w Łodzi" outside a mention in passing in one academic paper ([11]). But there are some other sources, ex. recently a discussion in local media (Lodz is however a major city in Poland...) about controversy relating to redesiging of the church ([12], [13]). The other content of the article is probably not WP:OR but WP:SPS as it can be referenced to webpages of the church itself, etc. I couldn't find anything about the building being declared a zabytek (Polish heritage list). I am in general an inclusionist but given the near total lack of sources about this building I could find, and it not being a historical monument (yet...?) it's a tough choice. PS. I nominated this for deletion on pl wiki pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2019:07:01:Kościół i klasztor św. Elżbiety Węgierskiej w Łodzi. Now, pl wiki is very inclusionist so it will probably end in 'all churches are notable, keep', but maybe someone can find sources that would be relevant to us. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wiesław Lisowski was one of the best Łódź pre-WWII architects. Xx236 (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable interwar Modernist church. No reason whatsoever for deletion. Significant public buildings generally have a very low threshold for notability, especially those that are architecturally striking as this is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we need at least some evidence of WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources? Preferably more than one? FOARP (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do. The fact that the architect may be notable is irrelevant since notability is not inherited. Saying a church is a notable interwar Mondernist, without providing sources to show that's an accurate statement isn't really a valid argument either. And the most prevalent argument here is "there must be valid sources, but we simply can't find them" (my paraphrase of several positions, not an actual quote), is not a valid argument either, as per WP:MUSTBESOURCES.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that "MUSTBESOURCES" is a summary conclusion from full essay Wikipedia:But there must be sources!, which is about cases where there really is no evidence or reason to believe sources do exist. Here, we believe that the church exists, is historic, has coverage in Polish language and other, and User:Onel5969 is basically just saying wp:IDONTLIKEIT and trying to force cleanup, but wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's as much a matter of inheritance as it is a matter of transference. If my house had been designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, it would have been notable. "Inheritance" is a different matter--once upon a time Wayne Greenhaw lived in the house I live in, but that doesn't make it notable. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many Polish Modernist buildings were destroied during WWII, so survivors are valuable.Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Call Me Angel[edit]

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

The official title of the song hasn't been revealed yet, the title being used for the article is a rumour, which violates WP:CRYSTAL. Fan4Life (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Fan4Life (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fan4Life (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yeah, this amounts to a product announcement which is specifically excluded under WP:CRYSTAL. Quite possibly this article can be re-created once the film launches in November, but for now there really is nothing known about it. As such, since no sources actually have any real information about it beyond who is making the song, it also seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:V. FOARP (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the problem with just anyone being able to create an article. I never did get that ObamaPhone (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - I have to agree. Not only does this fail NSONGS, but wikipedia editors need to stop spoiling upcoming releases before the artists themselves have had the chance to announce it. I know that RideOrDie from ATRL is a reliable insider, but we cannot create WP:TOOSOON mainspace Wikipedia articles based on just their word. Song databases like ASCAP and BMI are also not confirmation that a song will be officially released as a single. Hope Lk95 will understand this and stop competing for articles.--N Ø 11:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I mean, at this point, I don't see much of a problem with this remaining here. News sources reported on the title, which, sure, might be a "rumor", but if that's the biggest concern, if and when it is revealed to have a different name, we can move the article. I'm sure more news coverage will become available until this is released. Ss112 06:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: We have no release date, songwriters, producers, and only a rumored title. The article was really only created because it's a song by three well-known artists, although there is zero information on it other than that it was recorded and will eventually be released. This article does not need to be created yet. Redirect it to Charlie's Angels (2019 film) until more information comes out, and we can recreate it with the appropriate information. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All we know right now is that a song exists that these three collaborated on, and this is already summarized in the article on the film. --Michig (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The James Monroe[edit]

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

An apartment building. No indication whatsoever of how this meets WP:NBUILD which require the building to have " historic, social, economic, or architectural importance" and receive significant coverage from reliable sources. Rusf10 (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is part of the Lefrak Organisation's large Newport, Jersey City complex. It was one of its first large towers and there seems to have been coverage back in the 1980s such as in the New York Times. Our policies WP:ATD, WP:NOPAPER and WP:PRESERVE apply. Andrew D. (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A brief mention in a NY Times article is not significant coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Newport, Jersey City. While there does seem to be sufficient coverage form back in th elate 80s, early 90s to support a freestanding page, it makes more sense to cover this as part of the large development of which it was part.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included by Andrew D. in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City Djflem (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/delete Not every generic apartment building is notable, even if it's tall and got routine coverage when a developer constructed it. Reywas92^Talk 20:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited above. Article has been improved since AFD proposed, . WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use WP:NOTPAPER as justification to have an article about everything imaginable. You added a New York Times article while has exactly two sentences about the building. Your other sources do not even mention the building. So, There is exactly one source with two sentences. WP:NBUILD requires " significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources." Nothing has been improved.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST Article and sourcing has also been improved since the proposed deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The building was notable in the late 1980s and does not need sustained notability. Once notable always notable. There is much non-trivial secondary source coverage including a 1988 New York Times article that I just added. I will continue to ferret out sources. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 19:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was a stub 10 days ago. The article has come a long way. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 19:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City. There's one good article on the building from its construction, it gets a mention in another article, and that's all I can find on it, so it doesn't quite pass WP:GNG. Part of the article is fluff and does not adequately cover the source material. SportingFlyer T·C 20:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City per SportingFlyer. There is one decent source, but that is it. Extremely passing mentions in another article, and articles that do not discuss the tower at all, do not count as significant coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY, changing my opinion following improvements to page by User:7&6=thirteen and User:Lubbad85.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be fooled by this WP:HEY. None of the new sources help the building pass WP:GNG, and 7&6=thirteen is adding irrelevant block quotes to all of these articles to provide "context." SportingFlyer T·C 19:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more sources detailing the building's origins, construction and financing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article improvements prove it is notable. Dream Focus 16:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sporting Flyer. - Mainly 17:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of recent improvements to the article, as well as lack of current consensus for "keep" or "redirect".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It might have been an obvious "Keep" before, but with User:E.M.Gregory's improvements and comment above, it is now an obvious "Keep", IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satfies GNG. Djflem (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Junior school[edit]

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

Hasn't had any sources since 2009. The term itself doesn't seem to be notable, and whetever information is there can be merged to Canada/Australia/UK specific articles. Can just redirect to primary education which seems to be the more common term. Hydromania (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Note past discussion here which resulted in the redirect of Elementary school. Hydromania (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Junior school" indicates the education received after infants school, whilst "primary school" embraces both infants and junior school, so they are not synonymous. As an example, my primary school was divided into an infants school and a juniors school located at the same site. In other cases the infants school and the junior school may be independent of each other. Sources are easy to find, e.g.: 1 2 3 4. Passes WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS - very obviously a discussion from 2007 with two comments, which was anyway nothing to do with an article about junior schools, is not very persuasive as to what should be done with this page. FOARP (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:V, sources are only required for quotations or controversial facts. There are numerous books written about various aspects of junior schools and so the topic is notable per WP:NEXIST. See also WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 10:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? WP:V clearly states everything needs a source. Quotations and potentially controversial statements need inline citations. Hydromania (talk) 05:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, FOARP is absolutely right, infant and junior schools are separate in the UK and other countries. A whole class of schools that are part of the mainstream education system of several countries is clearly going to be notable. The redirection of elementary school is not a valid precedent; that was done on the basis that it was a synonym. SpinningSpark 21:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - refers to a specific type of school and is an important and notable concept. Just Chilling (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons given by those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources, per specific type of school that is important and notable per concept.BabbaQ (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A real, notable type of school. William2001^(talk) 05:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to National Independent Soccer Association#Clubs. Fenix down (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland Roots SC[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:TOOSOON. Only non-affiliated reference is a blog. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Has not played (not is it guaranteed to play) for the national cup. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm not that concerned about the fact it's a blog as it's a regular soccer writer writing the articles for something published by Hearst, see also [14]. Other coverage I found includes [15], [16], and [17] - seems to pass WP:GNG, as there are a number of other possibly non-reliable sources which mention the subject. SportingFlyer T·C 06:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like WP:ROUTINE, local coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There's a bit more to those articles than just routine coverage, they're all long and in depth. SportingFlyer T·C 16:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redriect per previous AFD and salt to prevent re-creation. Giant Snowman 09:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not salt - It's not clear which league they're going to be playing in so redirecting to a league per the previous AFD is not viable, they may well become notable in future. FOARP (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Nothing has changed since the last AfD. If they were an announced member of the NISA, I could maaaaaaaybe see giving them a pass. Otherwise, WP:GNG does not appear to be sufficiently demonstrated and the purpose of the article's recreation at this time is unclear. Jay eyem (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'm not sure why this would be nominated for deletion, rather than simply restoring the existing redirect, with reference to the previous AFD. It certainly shouldn't be salted, given the unanimous consensus for a redirect in the previous AFD, and the possibility of this team becoming real next year. Nfitz (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Certainly cannot pass the criteria for WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Now, as with any future recreation, the editor or (possibly fan) needs to provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Five sources on the article and four are primary with one being a blog. Considering that the redirect will likely be converted back to an article at the first available opportunity it is understandable that a salt was proposed. Comments that there are "other possibly non-reliable sources", with examples that are clearly either not reliable, attempting to show that Wikipedia is a crystal ball, or does not provide any notability, is precisely the reason this will likely be revisited, possibly as soon as the first game is played, likely using thin promotional breaking news sources. See: Wikipedia:RSBREAKING and Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Breaking news. ---- By-the-way ---, salting does not prevent an article from being created again. When repeated recreations are evident (certainly with sourcing issues), with the possibility of yet another repeat, it can be a form of protection requiring admin action before recreation, I think somewhat like a faster-tracked AFC. There should not be some presented stigma that salting is a bad thing, even horrible, and is certainly not final. Anyone can request protection removal and providing reliable sources would certainly gain approval and I dare say, a far less likely chance of a revisit to AFD. Otr500 (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your result – just wanted to note sports teams typically aren't subject to WP:NORG. It shouldn't be salted, the "blog" is coverage from a major media organisation and there are other feature articles we could use to write a decent article now, the only question I have at the moment is whether this team will actually play. SportingFlyer T·C 17:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A reply to the note: "Typically" may be correct, and we may use other ways, but not actually arguable that it is not appropriate unless a team is not an organization or company. I did not weigh in to agree for a salt. As a refresh to memory I will quote "it is understandable that a salt was proposed.". The rest was because I have seen editors implying that a salt is the end of an article and that is simply not true. I have stated this several times, and will again, that a source can be great for article content while not advancing notability. The article currently has only the blog and that is not a good choice for attempting to prove notability. If the team plays as planned I assume it will gather enough coverage in reliable sources to be notable. Otr500 (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did link two other feature length non-blog articles in my vote. SportingFlyer T·C 02:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The original AFD resulted in a redirect to National Premier Soccer League, however this team has now announced that it is not going to play in that league but instead in the NISA. Can the people voting redirect above please explain what they want to redirect to? FOARP (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume at this point it would be to National Independent Soccer Association where there is detail about this club. Nfitz (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Their uncertain future is the sole reason I would want a delete. With no specific target, we can deal with a target once they actually announce front-office staff, etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Until we get more reliable non-primary sources saying they will join NISA, I see nothing wrong with redirecting it back to the NPSL page. Or maybe the NPSL Founders Cup page now that it exists and is of particular relevance to the team. Jay eyem (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is probably too soon and I did !vote redirect before finding out the team was not going to play in the league as initially shown. Is there a history of apparently millions being pumped into creating a team (maybe as some scam) that ends up not becoming a reality? At this point the team apparently exists is why I went with redirect. Otr500 (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are some. Virginia Cavalry FC comes to mind. The issue here is that there's not a super clear redirect, since the competition that they will/were going to play in has always been a bit unclear. Initially, the page was redirected to the NPSL page because there was no NPSL Founders Cup page. And now that they have announced that they will play in the NISA, that seems to be the more clear redirect. It looks like Soccer America has covered it, so I don't know if that changes anybody's mind (it is behind a paywall). There's also this. Jay eyem (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Would need clarification of "so I don't know if that changes anybody's mind". It is so far clear of a decision to redirect. I support a necessary change of target, and I assume most would, but I don't see a change to "keep". To where seems to have been decided by the "team" changing leagues. Now it can be left to the closer, or possibly ping the other editors involved so they can weigh in and possibly agree. Otr500 (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sinitic religion[edit]

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

Content Fork from Chinese folk religion, Chinese religion; see talk page for April 2017 discussion in which now permanently blocked article creator promised to merge into above articles but never did ch (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ch (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear content-fork, with nothing to merge. FOARP (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect per previous consensus reached on talk page. -Zanhe (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haneda Airport Access Line Plan[edit]

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

Way too soon, the subject isn't expected to be completed until 2029, and JR East has only just begun environmental assessment prior to the initiation of construction. Moreover, JR East has been "considering" this line since 2013. I don't think there's much that we could write about this subject that wouldn't be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The project doesn't need to be finished to be notable. The article already includes in-depth coverage from reliable sources in English, and further coverage is available in Japanese. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Unfortunately, a lot of people do use Wikipedia as a travel directory, and having an article on a supposed train line that has apparently been in development hell for close to two decades without any indication in the lead that the name of the line is provisional, or in the title that the line doesn't exist yet and won't exist for a long time. I am not actually opposed to the concept of an article that would be written with more of an "idiot Wikipedia reader" in mind, but this isn't it. Plus, an entire section of the article is based on the English website of JR-EAST, with the rest mostly based on The Japan Times, a magazine that was originally intended for English-speaking ex-pats in Japan but these days draws almost all of its readership from Japanese people wishing to practice their English reading, and as a consequence readily sacrifices factual accuracy in favour of "fluent English prose": which is to say that Eastmain's claim above that the article "includes in-depth coverage from reliable sources [plural] in English" is just plain wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG - The delete arguments above are curiously devoid of any grounding in policy. The only real question here is: is it notable? It clearly is because it has received coverage in multiple reliable sources (which, yes, includes the WP:NEWSORG the Japan Times, the objections to which -speaking as a former regular reader- aren't justified) over an extended period. See the following: 1 2 3 4 5 FOARP (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 09:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not being due for completion until 2029 is not automatically a valid reason for deletion. Nor is "being in development hell for two decades". What is important, as others have said, is that the development is discussed in sources. Reporting plans discussed in sources is not WP:CRYSTAL. As for the ridiculous argument that "idiot Wikipedia readers" use Wikipedia as a travel guide and might mistake this for an existing line, not only does that have no basis in policy, but the word "proposed" right upfront in the first section should give that fact away to even the stupidest reader. SpinningSpark 21:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Return to Love[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The page doesn't even bother to describe what it is about, and half the sources are non-committal reviews (with a 30-year span, granted). The other citation is the skeptics dictionary.

I don't think there is much here, but XfD because I'd love to be proved wrong. I didn't find much on search, even filtering out the results for her recent run for president. It's been tagged since 2010. I can't find anything to support it staying around any longer. Kakurokuna (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BOOKCRIT. Two reviews in reliable sources is sufficient to sustain notability. This was a bestseller. Page quality issues should be addressed on the article's talk-page. FOARP (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the author's silly performance last night at the Democratic debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.176.47 (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FOARP and book prominence. The book seems a prominent one both in its field and its overall best-selling status. The author is currently a notable political figure whose personal history and work will be of public interest. Although the deletion request seems in good faith it is kind of hard to figure out why this was even nominated. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a proper WP:BEFORE would have shown reviews in major publications when it was published in 1992, and ongoing coverage in the decades since.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.241.192.210 (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, another waste of time for afd tragics (thats ME!!!:)), at the time this was nominated the article showed it met WP:NBOOK (see here), having been a bestseller and being seen as one of the key books to mainstreaming the new age movement, editors above have provided more to emphasise its notableness, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any book that spends 39 weeks on one of the New York Times Bestseller Lists qualifies as notable. It's also had cultural influence and started its author on a prominent career. If the article isn't that good, keep improving it. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin G. Blake[edit]

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

WP:NN local mayor, fails WP:POLITICIAN Toddst1 (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I strongly disagree and I believe that he meets WP:POLITICIAN. I find plenty of articles on him with a quick google search. Just because an article is undeveloped does not mean it is not notable. Milford is one of top 20 largest cities in the state, so media coverage is frequent. Mjs32193 (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Milford CT is not large enough to confer an automatic notability freebie on its mayors just because they exist — that bar measures only the population of the city itself, not its ordinal size-rank within its own state. But the majority of the references here are primary sources that are not support for notability, such as raw tables of election results and his "meet your mayor" profile on the city's own self-published website about itself, and the few that are actually real media are purely routine local verification that he was elected, and then re-elected, and then re-elected again. That's a type of sourcing that every mayor of everywhere can always show whether they actually clear our notability standards for mayors or not, so it isn't notability-making coverage for a mayor in and of itself: the notability test for a mayor is the ability to write a substantive article about his political impact, not just the ability to verify that he exists. And just saying there are other sources out on the Google isn't the magic bullet, either: just like the election results themselves, not every web page that happens to have a mayor's name in it is automatically a notability-building source. Mayors can still have their existence namechecked in articles that aren't about them and thus aren't support for their notability; mayors can still have their names mentioned in blogs and webforums and other unreliable sources that aren't support for their notability; mayors can still fail to receive coverage that expands anywhere beyond just their local newspaper; mayors can still coincidentally happen to have the same name as other people whose coverage is irrelevant to the mayor's notability. So the notability test still isn't just saying there are other hits out on the Google: it involves showing actual, specific examples of what you think might be notability-boosting coverage, so that we can actually evaluate whether they actually boost his notability as much as you think they do. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Giving all mayors of the top 20 cities in every state a free pass on notability would give us 1000 notable mayors at any given moment, just in the United States, and in some states would be truly scaping into very small places. Are there even 20 places in with a mayor in Alaska?John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the mayor of one of the 20 largest cities in his or her state is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass. Additionally, in order for politicians to meet GNG they must receive more than just routine local coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per GPL93 (talk). In this case at any given moment, a free pass on notability would give us 1000 notable mayors. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Resistance (American political movement)[edit]

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

Very few sources covering it. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS THE DIAZ ^{userpage • talk • contribs} 02:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep [18]Charmk (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added sources. Pass WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. FOARP (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with User:CASSIOPEIA, Sources added. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sorry, but we need more than a blithe "not delete" in order to not delete an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Losliya Mariyanesan[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ANYBIO, the references provided are from 'celebrity' websites (with uncertain independent editorial oversight - more like fan sites) which only relate to her appearance as a contestant on an Indian reality television show. In addition Instagram is used as a reference when it is not an acceptable source. Statements such as "She is one of the leading News Anchors in Sri Lanka" have no alternative sources of verification and those provided clearly don't support that she is a 'leading news anchor'. Dan arndt (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Competing in a reality TV show != notability. Ravensfire (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No resources, just trivial mentions [19]Charmk (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.75.56.154 (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please state your reason for your comment that the article not be deleted. Noting that consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. Dan arndt (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from reliable secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The High Life (2005 film)[edit]

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

Music DVD of questionable notability-either delete or a redirect to the band be the best. Wgolf (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find resources to establish notability. Charmk (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing shows up in my WP:BEFORE FOARP (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spunge.Ahmedelcunbal (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirecting will do it no good. Notability is not established. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This was a clear consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of mechanical keyboards[edit]

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

The term "mechanical" in this case is jargon. Even if we tried to fix the title, there is no set definition for "mechanical" in this case. Another thing is that this page has the potential to be so large that it would be impractical. I have no idea what could be done with this page, so I believe the best thing to do is to delete it. Invalid^OS (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Invalid^OS (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mechanical keyboards are a clearly defined group: "Mechanical switches, by contrast, get rid of the silicone altogether. Pressing down on the key activates a real, physical switch, usually involving a spring as the pushback mechanism, that registers what you type. Because the parts used are much more substantial than those in dome-switch keyboards, mechanical keyboards typically have a much longer life span.". Basically they're an alternative to dome-switched keyboards which are supposedly less durable. I do see lists on line in what appear to be reliable sources (1 2). I've got to say that I'm not a fan of this kind of list (they're krufty and it's hard to see who will actually find them useful), but it does appear to pass WP:LISTN. FOARP (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have many ideas what could be done with the page and so believe the best thing to do is keep it. See WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:NSALPATH SLOPU 15:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Jargon" is not a valid reason for deletion. Neither is having "no set definition"; if it were, we would not be able to have such articles as Love, Intelligence, and Genius. In any case, I challenge the assertion that it has no definiton. One has only to follow mechanical keyboard to find it. It is a keyboard that uses discrete mechanical switches as opposed to membrane or capacitive touch-input devices. They are discussed under that name in book sources [20][21][22] and this PC magazine offers a comparison of models showing that a list is notable. SpinningSpark 20:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason given for deletion. You don't delete a list article because you believe it might get too large. There are no size limits, long list are broken into smaller ones as deemed necessary. And lack of having any ideas for it is also an invalid reason. Dream Focus 03:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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