Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 6 November 8 November >

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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corona School Victoria Island[edit]

Corona School Victoria Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has just been passed through AfC, by an editor whose work I really respect. I think in all the articles they've approved through AfC that I've reviewed, this is the first decision of theirs I've disagreed with. While this primary school has had several notable folks go there, notability is not inherited. The coverage of the school does not appear to rise to the level of meeting WP:GNG, and therefore as a primary school, it should be deleted. Onel5969 TT me 23:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 23:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is an elementary school. Such need clear signs of notability to be kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page is about the school and not the president or …. The school is not notable on itself.Nikoo.Amini (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page should not be deleted as the information sources are verifiable and it is a useful source of information regarding this school that would otherwise take more effort to find — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.240.65 (talk) 01:47, 11 November 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax Lake[edit]

Halifax Lake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article states little more than that the place exists and may not meet the notability criteria for geographic locations Finball30 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Finball30 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Finball30 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lakes in general do not meet any standard requiring coverage, or allowing coverage in a separate article, besides wp:GNG. There are probably more lakes than persons in Canada; it is a fact that there are more than 500,000 in the province of Quebec for example. Yes there exist databases giving coordinates, which can also be determined from maps; coordinates are insufficent. Yes there exists databases of named geographic features, which sometimes, as here assert a reason for a feature's name; that is also insufficient. It is not notable why some landowner near a lake chose to name it for his daughter, his family dog growing up, or where he came from. --Doncram (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC) P.S. Also, there is no article existing in which it would make sense to mention this lake, at all. The article was not tagged for it, but in fact it is an wp:orphan; no mainspace articles at all link to it. It would be inappropriate to redirect or merge this to any article like Alberta, which is mentioned in the article, or to any other article. So "Delete" is appropriate. --Doncram (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on account this natural lake is a permanent fixture on the map. Describing this lake fits Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer. WP:GEOLAND explains: "This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc." – Gilliam (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. The full passage from wp:GEOLAND is:

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

Here, there does not exist info for an encyclopedic article. My interpretation right now of that passage is that it is pretty useless: it basically says if a lake has adequate sources for an article (i.e. if it meets wp:GNG), then it can be kept. We already have wp:GNG on the books. And, that last sentence is ridiculous. If there is no information available about a river island, then I highly doubt it should be mentioned in an article on the river. It is more likely so non-significant that it should not be mentioned in Wikipedia at all. Numerous editors do seem to think that Wikipedia is a gazetteer about more than it is. Wikipedia is a gazetteer about populated places, that is my understanding. It is not a gazetteer about lakes. Existence of a feature on maps is not sufficient... and we add nothing... a reader can see it on a map, and we have nothing to add. In fact we waste readers time by clogging up their Google search results, if we have an article pretending to provide more. --Doncram (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is not standard practice that every lake on earth gets an automatic notability freebie just because it exists, regardless of the quality of its sourcing; the rule is that we keep articles about lakes if we can write and source something significant about them, and not if all we can do is write and source that the lake exists. This lake, however, is of the latter type rather than the former: the article says nothing significant besides stating that it exists, and its only sources are trivial and indiscriminate directories of geographic names rather than substantive coverage about it. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia also functions as a gazetteer-thank you-RFD (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not for poorly sourced topics about which all we can say is "this exists, the end", it doesn't. We keep articles about lakes that can be substanced and sourced as significant, not just every lake that exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and if there is a list or regional article that happens to mention this body of water (which List of lakes of Alberta does not), redirect the title there. BD2412 T 20:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has encyclopedicCatorce2016 (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC) value.[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Doncram's well written analysis. I tried to find any mention of this feature to try and expand the article but it just does not appear notable at all. WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. Ifnord (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Doncram.4meter4 (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not passWP:GEOLAND Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. Unfortunately I can find no evidence of this lake except this. Lightburst (talk) 02:41, 16 November 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) 00:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Girls and Love Hotels[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lost Girls and Love Hotels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a film which appears to have gotten lost in the production pipeline; according to the article filming completed in December 2017, and according to IMDb it's been in post-production since February 2018, but it's now November 2019 and there's still been absolutely no news whatsoever about any actual release in almost two full years. Obviously the article could be restored if that changes in the future — but films don't stay in post-production this long unless something has gone very wrong, and nothing here suggests a reason why it could be considered so highly meganotable that an article would remain warranted even if it never actually comes out at all. (Alternatively, it might be possible to repurpose this into an article about the novel that the film was adapted from, which can mention the film adaptation while still shifting its primary focus onto the potential notability of the novel — but that would require somebody who can write about the novel with far more knowledge than I could, although I am willing to withdraw this if somebody can tackle it.) Either way, there's not much basis for treating the film as notable anymore, until there's some actual news that the film has finally been scheduled for real theatrical release. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The existing sources are pretty weak including one dead link. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   22:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The four sources are all somewhat routine, as well as three of them being in film-focused publications. Even if you argue that it scrapes past GNG, WP:crystal directly addresses such an article.Hydromania (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the fact that most of the sources are film-focused publications is not a problem in and of itself; specialist media are not automatically of less value than generalist media are. The volume of coverage still isn't enough to deem this permanently notable just because it entered the production pipeline without regard to whether it ever actually came out the other end as a finished product or not, I agree with that — but film-focused publications aren't automatically bad sources to use in an article about a film. Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 11 November 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) 00:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce McCarty (actor)[edit]

Bruce McCarty (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability concerns - no substantial independent coverage, and none of his roles appear to be major ones. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 7 November 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 Babylon 5. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow War[edit]

Shadow War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

100% plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT), fails to establish WP:NOTABILITY. – sgeureka t•c 20:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka t•c 20:45, 7 November 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) 00:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dilgar War[edit]

Dilgar War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-prod-ed article (sorry for prod-ing it twice). 100% plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT), and as per the article's first sentence merely covers the backstory of a TV show. I can't see how anything from the current article could be salvaged in order to comply with WP:WAF. – sgeureka t•c 20:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka t•c 20:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my prod concerns (fails WP:GNG). I also think it may be time to consider AN(I?) discussion about a community ban from deprodding for some editors whjo deprod content that is very clearly failing our policies like GNG, etc., without providing even a shred of argument like sources, etc. in return. PS. Ping User:Andrew Davidson, maybe you could explain your deprod? Why do you think this is notable? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of non-universe sources establishing notability. Very disruptive to mass-deprod non-notable articles devoid of sources without providing explanation or improving article that is purely in-universe plot. Reywas92Talk 06:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced Wikia-tier fictional item. TTN (talk) 11:56, 13 November 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 Babylon 5: In the Beginning. (non-admin closure) ミラP 23:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earth–Minbari War[edit]

Earth–Minbari War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-prod-ed article. 100% plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT), and as per the article's first sentence merely covers the backstory of a TV show. I can't see how anything from the current article could be salvaged in order to comply with WP:WAF. – sgeureka t•c 20:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka t•c 20:40, 7 November 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 Nom withdrawn as article was draftified. CaptainEek draftified and mainspace page deleted by Fastily under R2 (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MyKey (musician)[edit]

MyKey (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the notability criteria for musicians. Sources are self-published, primary or of unknown reliability. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Article was sent to draft space while I was writing up the AfD nomination. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:24, 7 November 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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suleymanovo[edit]

Suleymanovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is literally only one street - does it deserve its own page? I'm Caker18! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. I'm Caker18! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is described in reliable sources? Keep--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:50, 10 November 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) 00:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Teens Against Crime[edit]

American Teens Against Crime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional topic, no outside sources. Reywas92Talk 19:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 7 November 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) 00:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MUX (The Hardy Boys)[edit]

MUX (The Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional topic, no outside sources. Reywas92Talk 19:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I could find literally zero sources regarding this completely non-notable fictional company, outside of mirrors of this article. Even the Hardy Boys wiki doesn't have an entry for this entity. This is exactly the kind of article that the PROD system was created for, so we don't have waste time on an AFD, so its a bit ridiculous that the PROD was contested (and with no explanation why, at that). Rorshacma (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minor WP:PLOT element that completely fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Definition of fancruft. Deproded by User:Andrew Davidson with unhelpful technical summary. Andrew, can you tell us why you think this topic deserves its own article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.,Article is not sourced, does not meet notability. Alex-h (talk) 11:01, 11 November 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) 00:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Network (The Hardy Boys)[edit]

The Network (The Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional topic, no outside sources. Reywas92Talk 19:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 7 November 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. Strong consensus was that the subject passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Birth of John the Baptist (Signorelli)[edit]

Birth of John the Baptist (Signorelli) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability of this painting is not established. There are tens of thousands of paintings at the Louvre, and Signorelli painted many. Reywas92Talk 19:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 19:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't see why we would single out this painting by Signorelli for deletion, but leave all the other stubby articles about his works, many created by the same editor, alone. Some articles on his work aren't stubs. There may be an alternative to deletion. The fact that some articles, like Testament and Death of Moses have more detail may be an indication that articles like this one could be expanded. I don't immediately have access to Paolucci as source, but it's worth checking. Perhaps all the subs can be combined into a List of works by Luca Signorelli. Vexations (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable painting by a notable master artist. In the Louvre there are "5,500 paintings by 1,400 artists born before 1900". This one is displayed because it is notable. The book Exhibition of the Work of Luca Signorelli and His School claims that this particular artwork "is one of the best examples of Signorelli" Wm335td (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the page is well-sourced. Why is this even up for deletion? It did lead me to some good edits, which is one good result of unnecessary AfD noms, but well sourced visual arts pages shouldn't have to go through the process. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's a significant amount of writing about it. Ewulp (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nom is well intentioned but misguided, given the artist, and precedence; if an artist is notable, then it follows that people will be interested in their paintings, and thus the works are de facto notable to my wiki eyes; very often less developed articles have eventually passed GA. As Ewulp says, there is enough available source material for significant expansion. Also per Wm335td. Ceoil (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 10 November 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 Marjorie Gubelmann. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vie Luxe International[edit]

Vie Luxe International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Appears to be WP:PAID/WP:COI creation. Loksmythe (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Loksmythe (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wall Street Journal is a respectable source.Rathfelder (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it is, in general. But it's not being used a such, it's a being used for mention of company products as part of a lifestyle feature, not as a source of reliable information about the company. --Calton | Talk 14:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indistinguishable from an advertisement, with no real sources attesting to notability. --Calton | Talk 14:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Marjorie Gubelmann, the company's founder, in lieu of deletion. The coverage I found about the company (such as this article in Haute Living titled "Scent of a CEO: Marjorie Gubelmann’s Vie Luxe") are primarily focused on Gubelmann.

    Cunard (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 18:52, 7 November 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 Aviation Survival Technician. Also moved as suggested. Content can be merged from history as desired. Sandstein 08:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Rescue Swimmer Badge[edit]

Aviation Rescue Swimmer Badge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Citation shows an image of a "Coast Guard Rescue Swimmer insignia" (not the title given here) with zero context about it whatsoever. Only search results are mirrors and people selling the pin without substance about it. Reywas92Talk 18:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 18:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Aviation Survival Technician, which is the specialty whose training program grants this. I am more than a little dubious about whether this name is an official designation for the AST wings. But it is used on some commercial sites, and redirects are cheap. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Georgia Army Vet did what I should have done and found the official designation of this insignia in the regs, but I'm still not convinced that the insignia itself has any notability independent from the program that awards it? The target article, which already depicts this insignia, should of course be amended with the correct name for it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lean not to Keep as a standalone article, be need more consensus on where to merge/redirect to
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 18:51, 7 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KVHF-LD[edit]

KVHF-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

LPTV station doesn't meet notability/WP:NOTABILITY. CentralTime301 18:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CentralTime301 18:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CentralTime301 18:50, 7 November 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 Badges of the United States Coast Guard. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Office of the Secretary of Homeland Security Identification Badge[edit]

Office of the Secretary of Homeland Security Identification Badge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod denied without reason. No evidence of notability, no sources or coverage, substantive or not, independent or not. Google search only brings up WP mirrors. Reywas92Talk 18:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 18:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the discussion, a redirect might be the good route. Admins: this is not a second !vote but an alternate. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yep, no probs with a redirect. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really can see the handwriting on the wall. Charles D. Michel links to the page but the refs there are dead; I've flagged them.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:27, 14 November 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 Deryni novels. Interested editors may selective-merge or transwiki as they see fit. – sgeureka t•c 10:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven Kingdoms[edit]

Eleven Kingdoms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Collection of non-notable, in-universe fictional minutia. TTN (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Deryni novels, where it is already mentioned as the setting of the series. Sources, outside of basic plot summaries, are largely limited to just stating that it is the series' setting, rather than any in depth discussion. This seems largely due to the fact that only two of the kingdoms, Gwynedd (fictional) and Torenth (fictional) are actually major locations in the series, so most information is limited to them. Rorshacma (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Rorshacma. All in-universe details for at least nine of them. P.S. Can someone explain to me why The Eleven Kingdoms redirects to Health board??? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a reference to Health board (Ireland). Goustien (talk) 06:14, 13 November 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 Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser#Setting. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nehwon[edit]

Nehwon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional location that fails to establish notability. It only contains plot information. TTN (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:57, 7 November 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) 00:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heathen Scouting and Guiding[edit]

Heathen Scouting and Guiding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability. None of the sources in the article meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and I've failed to find any replacements. Most online search hits for the relevant terms are from blogs that seem to copy their text from Wikipedia. The standard works about neopaganism in the countries mentioned in the article (Norway, Sweden and the United States) contain nothing about the subject. Ffranc (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination. --jergen (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am in two minds about this as I think there is a need for an article that deals with attempts to have Scouting without the religious part. I was strongly involved in Scouting until the mid 1960s when I finally accepted that I did not believe in any kind of god. I have over the years continued to support Scouting when my kids were involved but I have not held any warranted position. I think that was Scouting 's loss as I was heavily involved in leader training when I left. However this article is not acceptable as there are no decent references, so delete. --Bduke (talk) 01:05, 9 November 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scoffable[edit]

Scoffable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional content has been toned down, but still not seeing how this passes WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see why this should be deleted - I have tried to refer to news and other sources where possible in describing the company. It is not intended to be promotional, only to state facts and provide background information to the company in question. I have not been asked or paid to write this entry. Also, it is not dissimilar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Eat which describes a similar company Mocathe1st (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and close- promotional piece moved by COI, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article cites a number of sources, but does not seem to meet WP:NCORP criteria for notability. The sources cited are heavily based on primary information (I.E are not entirely independent of the subject), are regional, are routine business announcements, or are list articles; none make a case for Scoffable being individually notable when compared to other delivery services. Couple this with the dubious means (undisclosed paid editing contradicts WP:NOTADVERTISING) by which the article was created, and this is a delete for me. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even leaving aside the possible COI issues identified in the discussions above, my feeling is that on balance the company does not meet notability requirements at the moment. Dunarc (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 13:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Couldn't find any RS. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:48, 15 November 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. With respect to the keep argument, being involved in an international organization is not usually considered evidence of notability in and of itself. WP:GNG and WP:NBIO have the actual criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aviva (singer)[edit]

Aviva (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe this meets the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. It's unclear what it means to be "considered" for a Grammy, but the song was not nominated. Awards won are regional rather than the type to confer notability. I'm unable to find significant discussion of this artist in reliable sources. ... discospinster talk 14:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 14:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 14:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:35, 7 November 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 20:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Side Salad Records[edit]

Side Salad Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable record label. WP:BEFORE searches are only providing passing mentions in reliable sources. Haven't found any significant coverage to qualify an article as per WP:CORPDEPTH. North America1000 14:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:40, 7 November 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 20:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Arshad Alam[edit]

Arshad Alam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCRIC. Andrew Base (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:40, 7 November 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. Consensus that it meets WP:BROADCAST which was unchallenged once raised (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KCBT-LD[edit]

KCBT-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

LPTV station does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BROADCAST. CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 16:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 16:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 16:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet GNC and WP:BROADCAST. No reliable independent source. — Mathieudu68 talk 21:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BROADCAST; in the future I now ask you to bring these noms to the talk page of WP:TVS for a second opinion before coming to AfD, because bringing a nom without a cursory search source or knowledge of our guidelines is a waste of time and resources. Nate • (chatter) 01:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per long-established precent and WP:BROADCAST. Station is an LPTV and not a translator; article needs some flesh on the bones, not deletion. Mlaffs (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BROADCAST.4meter4 (talk) 03:27, 15 November 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of Municipal Committee Pattan[edit]

List of members of Municipal Committee Pattan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local government; should be merged into the article about the city. Kb03 (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kb03 (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pattan has a population of 16K, far from big enough to warrant a list of committee members. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, as it stands (a quick gsearch didn't bring up anything useful), anyway, size of Pattan article does not warrant this info to be separate, a small "Governance" section with some of this info might be okay? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow. People of Pattan have elected these members whose elections were held by the State Election Commission which works under Election Commission of India. Information about it is avaliable on Official Website of CEO of J&K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshil Sharma Editor (talk • contribs) 06:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:18, 15 November 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noufal Abdullah[edit]

Noufal Abdullah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. There are many film editors in the world. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a newbie in creating articles in wikipedia I apologize for not adding enough citations, I have updated with more news citations. I created this article as I believe he is a prominent editor in Malayalam Cinema and saw the name in red in many film wikipedia pages. Tshanib (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:n, sources have to be about him or at least be more then just mentions.Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete @Tshanib:, you probably want to take a look at the notability guidelines before you continue. There are many, but the ones that apply to this article (in order from more-general to more-specific) are the General Notability Guideline, the Notability (people) guideline, and the Creative Professionals section of the people guideline. What these guidelines all have in common is that they ask for evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. The 27(!) references in the article are no more than film credits. They demonstrate the article subject has been involved with notable projects, not that the subject is notable in their own right. I hope this helps explain things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. In general film editors lack RS unless they have been nominated or won a major award (such as an Academy Award). That's the nature of the way media and writers on film cover this content area. There just isn't any significant sources to support an article on this individual.4meter4 (talk) 03:17, 15 November 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. North America1000 03:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Io Sono Quel Che Sono/Menina Mulher Da Pele Preta[edit]

Io Sono Quel Che Sono/Menina Mulher Da Pele Preta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Maybe one or two other issues as well. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the wiki page for this single up for deletion and what can happen to make it stay? Midcey (talk)

Please read wp:n, there has to be evidence that this single is notable in its own right.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also you might want to read wp:copy.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was just warranted because it was his first official debut single, didn't really think this would happen lol Midcey (talk)

@Midcey: just because the artist is notable, it doesn't mean that every record released by the artist is itself notable. To keep it on Wikipedia, it needs sources that are reliable (not blogs), independent (not social media belonging to the artist or his record company), and in-depth (not just a mention that the record is out, and that's it). You can't use Wikipedia as a source either (violates WP:CIRCULAR), or just linking to Amazon, iTunes, Spotify or any site that only proves that the song exists, not that it's notable. Richard3120 (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsaas Song[edit]

Ehsaas Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG. This article is a mess – if it was notable, the article title should be Ehsaas (song) anyway, but there doesn't seem to be any notability for the song itself. The text is the plot and cast of the movie where the song comes from. The infobox is for the movie, complete with movie poster. Lots of references to streaming sites for the song, or gossip blogs, but apart from the opening paragraph which states the singer, writer and producer, I can't find any information about the song itself. It seems like the sensible thing would be to redirect to the film, but the two Wikipedia articles about "Ehsaas" don't appear to be about the 2018 movie, and the singer doesn't have an article, so those aren't options either. If someone can find reliable sources in Hindi I'll gladly reconsider the nomination, but otherwise I can't see any other option other than to WP:TNT the article and rewrite it about the movie instead, incorporating whatever reliable information there is about the song, and rename the article. Richard3120 (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the song fails WP:NSONG. I couldnt find any coverage of the song in reliable sources. There are couple of press releases, and two similar articles which most probably are paid ones. They are already used as refs in article. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article must not be deleted as i have added enough reliable news links and which are not paid. Kslm0007 (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Kslm0007 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
The only reliable links are the Hindustanlive and Amarujala newspapers, and all they tell you is that the song is going to be released, and the names of the stars and director of the video – nothing to demonstrate notability. The Dainik Jayant and Bollywood Tadka (a gossip website) are profiles of the director and do not mention the song. The rest are links to music streaming websites. Richard3120 (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have written all the details of this song, in which Sandeep Bharadwaj has played the lead, who played the lead in killing Veerappan, I have also mentored the name of its director and producer and this song has come in the Jin Jin International Pottles as MP3. I have also seen all their links and I have also mentored youtube link sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kslm0007 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However, if you feel that this page should be deleted, then I respect you Sir, as you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kslm0007 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Respect sir, You can check again I have added the gender of Dainik Jagran and also add the singing theme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kslm0007 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the problem – you have added the name of the lead actor in the video, the video's director, a YouTube link, MP3 sites where you can hear the song... but absolutely nothing about the song itself, nor why it is notable. And now we find that the song isn't called "Ehsaas" at all, it's in fact "the song from the Ehsaas video", which makes the article title even more incorrect. To have an article on Wikipedia it needs to pass the criteria at WP:NSONG. Richard3120 (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: could you please point us in the direction of the sources you think might be reliable, because I can't find anything? Richard3120 (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A re-list to see if Bearian's sources can be employed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails all tests for notability. I don't see any way to save it. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NSONG. Tens of thousands of Bollywood songs, and some are notable. Like the theme from Slumdog Millionaire. However there is not any notability in this one yet. Lightburst (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment too Richard3120 I looked on Google, but now I can't find them again. I give up. Bearian (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: C. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cutthroat (comics)[edit]

Cutthroat (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:37, 7 November 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) 20:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OhBoy![edit]

OhBoy! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any reliable sources except, perhaps, the BBC announcement of their performance at Glastonbury. They don't appear to meet any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Leschnei (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Leschnei (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Remarkably un-notable.Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nom. Spent some time with Google, and simply cannot find any reliable sources that would meet the requirements of WP:NMG. — Satori Son 16:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Nom. I tried but could not find reliable sources for this article. Alex-h (talk) 11:12, 11 November 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) 00:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Manila FM[edit]

Radio Manila FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Radio station appears not to be notable, is no longer broadcasting and I cannot find adequate secondary sources. Note - there is a separate Radio Manila based in Italy which appears to be a different radio station. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Webcaster with pie-in-the-sky hopes of 'wifi radio' being a thing, which judging from our website access being from the WBM, it wasn't. Nate • (chatter) 07:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a semi-advertorialized, and completely unreferenced, article about a web radio broadcaster, evincing no proof whatsoever that it would pass our notability criteria for media. There's not a titch of evidence, for example, that this thing actually broadcasts on real FM radio at all, or that it has a license from the Philippine broadcast regulator, or that it has any reliable source coverage about it in sources independent of its own self-published web presence. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform for startup companies to publicize themselves on: there are notability criteria that a topic has to pass to earn a Wikipedia article, and one of them is the existence of reliable source coverage about it in real media other than itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Their website doesn't work. There are no sources regarding its existence. SUPER ASTIG 12:24, 11 November 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 Skrull. (non-admin closure) ミラP 03:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dorrek VII[edit]

Dorrek VII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is leaning against Keep but not clear if it is a Merge or Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skrull. Jhenderson 777 07:25, 14 November 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 Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos. (non-admin closure) ミラP 03:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Manelli[edit]

Dino Manelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is leaning against Keep but not clear if it is a Merge or Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 12:22, 7 November 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. There was no consensus for either keep or delete prior to a substantial reworking of the article. Consensus since that reworking seems to be in favor of keeping. Any possible rename may achieve consensus through normal processes. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Table-glass[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Table-glass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, not known by such a name in English, unlikely to be notable, just an ordinary faceted drinking glass. If we're to have an article on such a thing, let's start with sources. Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a DICDEF, seems to have a notable existence and history in Russian culture, much like Podstakannik, and other concepts. AFD is not the place to ask for sources, complain about the article name, or merely suggest that it is just 'unlikely to be notable'. Spokoyni (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How is this different than Highball glass? Could possibly merge with that article, as a sub-section related to this apparently Russian variant, no? Alternatively, if worthy of its own article, I think it should be moved to something that is consistent with WP:COMMONNAME as I certainly don't call these type of glasses "table glass". I guess I'd maybe !vote to move to Ribbed glassware. Doug Mehus (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Ribbed glassware (or similar name)—something consistent with WP:COMMONNAME. I think this is a case of WP:LOSTINTRANSLATION. Ping me with any significant sources to reconsider my !vote and rationale. Doug Mehus (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Andrew Davidson: and @RoySmith: made some useful arguments in the 1st nomination on merging with Tumbler (glass). That seems like a potentially useful approach, as I think it's worthwhile noting this type of tumbler's apparent Russian origins, but we should do so perhaps as a merged article or, alternatively, by renaming this article, no? Doug Mehus (talk) 06:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging to a section in Tumbler (glass) seems like a good idea to me. I see it's got a link there already. Dicklyon (talk) 06:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of different ideas here, including deletion, retention, merging and moving. Relisting in hopes for a more solid consensus to form.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless someone can find significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - have rewritten the article, using a small selection of the sources available - a lot more in Russian than in English not suprisingly, and can add more if required. An even stronger keep. Spokoyni (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spokoyni: do you have a suggestion for a better title? Dicklyon (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an interesting question. A literal translation of гранёный стакан is 'Faceted glass'. There would be the option of treating it like Podstakannik, and using 'granyonyi stakan', but this is perhaps suboptimal. Podstakannik is not quite a loanword yet, but is mostly used untranslated in English, the same is not true for the granyonyi stakan, at least not yet. In internet searches, variations on 'Faceted glass Russia' are always about this concept, but 'Bevelled glass Russia' are not. So I think the name solution could be best fixed with the title 'Faceted glass'. Spokoyni (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Facted glass is OK by me. I'll do an RM. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Get consensus post new updates by Spokoyni
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:GNG, and article now shows this with improvements made, i will leave it to others to decide on a rename if required, that can be discussed on article talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Faceted glass per Spokoyni.4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 15 November 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. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stagecoach Gold bus route X4[edit]

Stagecoach Gold bus route X4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Route not notable enough to warrant its own article Commyguy (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing out of the ordinary other than a run of the mill bus route with local coverage only. Ajf773 (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that WP:GNG does not specify that coverage cannot be in local sources, only that they have to be reliable. Also, Coach and Bus Weekly is not a local source, it is a national magazine. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coach and Bus Weekly covers a lot of bus routes right across the UK. That source alone is not independent enough. Ajf773 (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Based on The Mirror Cracked's sources. WP:AUD continues to cause problems. If this were a WP:CORP article then it would apply, but it is isn't, instead its about a bus-route that over time can be operated by any company that buys the franchise (i.e., it's not tied to the company), so Ajf773's point about local/niche sources doesn't apply. Similarly the objections based on WP:MILL (an essay) aren't convincing because the instances of WP:SIGCOV in the references provided highlight the reasons to believe that the subject is not "run-of-the-mill" (e.g., the length of the route, the new buses deployed on it, the cost of it etc.) and constitute 7 years of coverage. FOARP (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:MILL is just an essay. Sources denote GNG. Lightburst (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coach and Bus Weekly is a trade magazine with no connection to Stagecoach, the local transport authority or any other involved party. The only connection is that Coach and Bus happens to be based in Peterborough through which the route passes, but that doesn't mean it should be classified as a local newspaper. It 'covers a lot of bus routes', but that is a core part of the industry that it reports on. Cleebee2 (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - GNG is easily satisfied by reason of the materials pointed out by earlier users. Bookscale (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Mirror Cracked.4meter4 (talk) 02:51, 15 November 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 Jaci Velasquez discography. Clear consensus not to keep the article, but given the suggestion that the information could be merged to her discography, I've redirected instead of deleting outright. Previous content remains in the history for merging if desired. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On My Knees: The Best of Jaci Velasquez (album)[edit]

On My Knees: The Best of Jaci Velasquez (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of On My Knees: The Best of Jaci Velasquez. If the AfD concludes as keep, the article should be moved there. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. It has one review and the AllMusic rating. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to a lack of coverage in third-party, reliable sources. I do not think a redirect would be helpful in this case because a redirect for On My Knees: The Best of Jaci Velasquez already exists (as pointed out by the nominator). Aoba47 (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't have the sources that I can see on the Web to satisfy WP:GNG, nor does it appear to satisfy any of the criteria of WP:NALBUM. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM. Here, here, Here, and Here you can see that the album charted over several months on Billboard.4meter4 (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Low placement on minor charts does not help to reach notability criteria. Remember, NALBUM states albums "must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and that they "may be notable" if it meets at a criterion, not that it is automatically notable. In this case, basic criteria has not been met and the low charting hasn't helped it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are adding your own extra criteria that goes beyond what the actual guideline says in criteria 2. It doesn't matter where she placed on the chart, only that she placed. And a Billboard chart is always notable since it's the most recognizable chart in the recording industry. There is a critical review and multiple months of placements on a notable chart. All together, it's a notable album.4meter4 (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Walter Görlitz. WP:NALBUM includes chart placement in the following category (Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria:). That is taken directly from the page so it not really a matter of personal interpretation. The page clearly says that chart placement may point to a recording's notability, not that it does on its own. The page puts more importance on coverage as shown in this part (All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.). Again, that is a part taken directly from WP:NALBUM. One critical review is not enough to support significant coverage. The chart placements and review do suggest a limited notability, but since a shorter and more exact redirect (On My Knees: The Best of Jaci Velasquez) already exists, I do not see a reason for redirecting this too. Aoba47 (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Adoba47:The guideline does says, "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart." If we are going to interpret subject specific guidelines as not really applying unless they meet the criteria at WP:GNG then there is no point to having WP:NALBUM or any other subject specific guideline at all. Here is a relevant Quote: this comment from Dodger67 about subject-specific notability guidelines: An SNG is by definition meant to (temporarily) lower the bar for subjects for which proving GNG compliance is difficult.4meter4 (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @4meter4: Are you reading the two sentences of the preamble? That's what we're quoting from. The criteria states that a subject meeting the points may be notable, not that it is automatically notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no suitable sources; other than e-commerce sites and AllMusic/Discogs, all I can find with a Google Search is this, which appears to be slighly BLPSPS. Also, even if we take Dodger67's comment at face value, such a reduction in notability is temporary; this came out in 2006, and having not achieved notability in the intervening 13 years means that it probably wouldn't do so anytime soon. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If I get a vote, that is. This is the author of the article in question. I just don't get it. Why is there even a discussion about this article? I look around at other articles on Wikipedia and see literally dozens with one reference and more than a few with none. Personally, I'm glad they are there because I wanted to see them. I was looking for them. An encyclopedia is about access to information that people want to read. All of it, not just what's popular. If any information is absent then we don't get the full experience and what we come away with is less than it could or should be. I think some of you take the guidelines way too far and I will go as far as to say maybe they should be revisited as there seems to be some confusion as to what they are. I understand that you don't want every Sally Sunshine posting articles about her cat having kittens or Junior getting a participation trophy, and I thank you for that. The world does not need another Facebook. Didn't need the first one, but that's another discussion. There will be a lot of deserving material left out if we absolutely need a review from someone who's opinion may or may not coincide with everyone else's. I rarely agree with critics. Collecting music is a longtime hobby of mine and I'm often frustrated because I can't find an album on Wikipedia when I search for it. I've also found that the articles on Wikipedia tend to be more accurate than AllMusic or Discogs. That's one of the reasons I began posting articles. Because what I was looking for was not there. It should be there, otherwise what's the point? Just for the record, I am not paid to post, nor do I know any of the artists whose articles I've submitted, some of which have already disappeared from Wikipedia to my utter frustration. Thank you.HowlinMadMan (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because other articles exist with one reference or are lacking notability does not mean that this article should continue to exist. If you want to nominate those articles for deletion, feel free to. The instructions are at Wikipedia:Deletion process. "Deserving material" is not the criteria, notability is. Your pattern of editing does not make it seem as though you're a paid editor. I understand your frustration. When you wrap your head around notability criteria though, you'll be much less frustrated. And one thing further, it's not a bad thing to create an article about a subject that's not notable, it's actually part of the learning process. We're constantly having deletion discussions like this about old and new articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not what I was saying at all. Did you just skim my post? I know I tend to ramble and get a little long winded, but… really? I would not nominate a perfectly good article for deletion just because it didn't have enough sources. All I care about is that it's accurate. Even if I don't want to read it, someone else might be looking specifically for that unremarkable article. Personally, I believe if a well known artist, or even most that aren't so well known for that matter, releases an album, even if it tanks, it's notable and interesting, even if just to show that the golden boy or girl or band doesn't always hit the ball out of the park. It may not necessarily be remarkable, but it can still be notable. This album we're discussing charted at number 22 on one of the Billboard charts. Several songs on the album peaked at number one on that chart. Is that not notable? Even it it hadn't charted at all, I wish it had been there when I was searching for it. If I'm interested in, say, Nina Simone. There's a lot of the old stuff that you just can't find, easily, on the internet. The older artists aren't flashy enough to get the kid's attention, and I'm not going down to the library and rolling out the microfiche just to look for a source. I want to be able to read about every album she ever released, and not just the titles. I want the details. That's why you open an encyclopedia. That's the only reason you open an encyclopedia, to be honest. To learn everything you can on a particular subject. The good and the bad. That's just an example. For all I know Wikipedia may have all the details on Ms. Simone that I'd ever want to read. But back to the subject. You missed my point entirely in your nice effort to help me understand where I went wrong. I'm sure you're a smart person, but you're a tad condescending. I'll bet you didn't even realize you were doing that, actually, and if you did realize it… well, I've said enough about that already. I'm always happy to learn something new, but only if it's knowledge I truly lack in the first place and the teacher isn't talking to me like my IQ is 85. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I understand notability. And that brings me to my point once again. Notability means nothing to me if I can't find what I'm searching for. You guys are too hung up on that term, IMO. Notability. I know… you have standards to keep and that's great. Accuracy is a much better word. It an article is accurate then it should be published. The problem, as I see it, is you only want the caviar, but sometimes people want some pâté or maybe even some balogna. I want to be able to find the stuff I can't find anywhere else. I can read about Taylor Swift and Beyonce all day long and never open a Wikipedia page. That's what should be of concern to whoever is running the show. Stand out. Be unique. Be accurate. Be plentiful. People, or users like myself, want to find the stuff that's not readily available elsewhere. The stuff you can't find on AllMusic or Discogs. Or, to be more precise, a better, more accurate, representation of it. We want the caviar too, just not only the caviar. Not only the notable stuff which can easily be confused with popular (when you're relying on two or more reviews to set the standard). What are reviews but one persons opinion? Again, it sort of speaks to popularity. Information is key and you guys are deleting it because it didn't make the front page. You're deciding what people can and can't read. That's actually kink of scary, when you think about it. It even crossed my mind that the reason this article was marked for deletion might be because of it's religious nature. It was just a fleeting thought and I didn't seriously consider it. Now, I know there's probably a bunch of you guys gathered around a honking big round table, sharpening you swords and lances, smiling and winking at all the pretty wenches, and making all these decisions about which article lives and which one dies. Sorry, I suppose that's a little condescending, but it still paints a good picture. No offense. IMO, and yes, I know that means squat here, you should choose life in most cases. I mean, what does it really hurt, except to take up a small amount of space on a server? True, enough small spaces and you have a larger space but if you kill it, nobody benefits. The bottom line is, if Wikipedia doesn't have what I need, then what good is it to me? Once again, no offense. Business management 101. Oh, before I forget, my frustration is mostly because I can't find what I'm looking for on Wikipedia in the first place (that's why I decided to create my own articles, so others might find what they're looking for) and not because what I'm looking for isn't notable enough. It's just not there. I can only assume someone deleted it. And yes, that's frustrating as well. Again, no offence, or maybe just a little. Good day.HowlinMadMan (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I did just skim your post and I'm not reading much beyond that question here. However, when you write that you "create my own articles" because you apparently can't find them elsewhere, then maybe you should try blogging. Wikipedia is only a place for articles on notable subjects. Notability is linked above. Also see WP:NOTBLOG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The information about this album can be contained within the article on the main artist (Jaci Velasquez) and a simpler redirect (On My Knees: The Best Of Jaci Velasquez) already exists so that anyone who is interested in learning more about this album or Velasquez in general can learn more about both. There would not really be a loss of information in this scenario. I can understand your frustration, because no one likes having an article that they created go to an AfD. But, I would recommend that you re-examine your argument. Again, this information could be housed in the Velasquez article and could still be accessed by anyone who is interested so I do not think your argument on information loss entirely holds up here. The article was not nominated as some sort of anti-religious statement and describing editors as "a bunch of you guys gathered around a honking big round table, sharpening you swords and lances, smiling and winking at all the pretty wenches" is not helpful. You accuse others of being condescending, but that kind of language is unnecessary for this kind of discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Probably meets NALBUM but that is not a sufficient condition to confirm notability/GNG; are there any other RS that could do this? Try on last re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think this meets the GNG notability guidelines (it's post-internet, and I've searched several places in-depth, and why would anyone write about a generic "greatest hits" compilation of previously-released material anyway? so I actually doubt there's anything available), but on the other hand there is a lot of verified, non-controversial information available to a reader seeking information about this notable artist. On the other hand, someone seeking more information about this is likely to own the album, and there's little here that can't be found on the album itself. Merging to her discography seems like a good idea, although it would look awkward in that all the other entries have their own articles. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the comment. I just wanted to clarify that there are several albums in this artist's discography that do not have independent articles, including another compilation album Mi Historia Musical. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you are correct. I don't think that information was ever built, for those albums. The reason I'm mulling is that I don't really think the topic is notable as a stand-alone article, and accordingly per WP:PRESERVE, WP:SUBNOT and WP:NALBUM the information should be merged into the artist biography or discography. Discography seems the obvious choice to me. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:05, 18 November 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 Speedily Delete. Deleted by Ritchie333 under G4 (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diono[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Diono (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Notability concerns Catorce2016 (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Can someone with admin rights check whether this differs substantially from the article deleted by AfD on 16 September 2019? If not, WP:G4 should apply? AllyD (talk) 13:29, 7 November 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 Speedily Delete. Delete Jimfbleak under G12 (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beatifik[edit]

Beatifik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Badly written piece Catorce2016 (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Catorce2016 (talk) 11:05, 7 November 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 Restored redirect, recreation by self-confessed block-evading sockpuppet. Guy (help!) 13:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

He Bowls To The Left[edit]

He Bowls To The Left (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was AfD'd back in 2012, with a consensus to redirect. Another editor has recreated the exact same article, with the single addition of one non-RS citation. As per ATD and the earlier AfD, I restored the redirect. The other editor has cited WP:CCC, so here we are. Onel5969 TT me 10:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I think the redirect to content previously merged into the Mitchell Johnson article is the best option. WP:PAGEDECIDE says that we can make editorial decisions on whether a topic should have its own article or a section in a wider article. Spike 'em (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the original, there are sufficient reliable 3rd party sources available to support it's retention. Besides, the reason I brought it back was to assist @LlewynYiming: in facilitating the restoration as he was the person who wanted it restored and I am sure he is going to be adding more sources shortly. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As for the document, I agree that there should be a Wikipedia page resembling this. When I was watching You tube videos, I saw this chant. When I searched up it on Wikipedia, it was redirected. I felt so rejected and sad. So well yeah, there are also enough sources (Third party, Second Party ect.) so I really think we should keep it as it is. By that I mean KEEP IT. Also replying to The C of E, I will add more sources. LlewynYiming (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Also, I have added more sources.LlewynYiming (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    LlewynYiming, WP:IFELTREJECTEDANDSAD is not an inclusion criterion on Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 13:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

InstaLoad[edit]

InstaLoad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:GNG. Back in 2010, Microsoft sent out a press release about some vaporware,[5] and (surprise!) Gizmag and Wired parroted the PR copy.[6][7] What happened next was... absolutely nothing.

WP:TOOSOON explains why we don't run out and make stubs every time somebody announces a new thing they very much hope to do, but have not in fact done yet. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep:*Neutral:Delete: nom reasoning seems reasonable unless someone comes up with improvements.10:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 10:24, 2019 October 22 (UTC)
(Changed to neutral due to discussions at 28 October below) ... Microsoft are still (rightly or wrongly) advertising the licensing of the product [8] and Amazon cited it from a patent, albeit very minor. [9] and the links URLs are available on Wayback.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing MPD passing mention for MPD in designWorld Jan 2016 p 397. I'd also note [10] and [11]. Thats possibly not quite enough really for a keep. but I think there is some sign of implementation and some sign of uniqueness. Coin cell batteries are a likely target as bigger stuff is usually physically made Djm-leighpark/idiot proof against incorrect insertion.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the topic accrued some speculative coverage in 2010, but a search for sources by date do not reaveal any sources published post 2010, which indicates to me the subject fails WP:NCORP (which also covers company products.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: For a while, I could not determine what to advise here. Wikipedia is not a collector of bad ideas, but this one is quite the opposite. It is a great idea. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that "great" is subjective. What exactly is great here? Well... it is a "great idea" in that it is an "idea with the potential to have impact". But ten years has passed and it did not have an actual impact. I tried looking for more details on it too. It seems its Channel 9 video has been taken down. Only the video's description page remains. Looks like it is just another idea that never took off. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Dennis (product and gng) — Ched (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Per nom. Barca (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Changing to Keep Per Cunard's input. Barca (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. @Dennis Bratland: I wouldn't say nothing happened. I did find one peer reviewed journal article from 2012 which indicated that it is being used in the medical technology sector: "Designing a more patient-centric battery holder.(Emphasis On Batteries)"; Blaha, Tom, Medical Design Technology, Sept, 2012, Vol.16(7), p.16(2). This moves it towards a keep, but not sure if this quite meets WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They actually shipped a product that uses it? What's it called? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Bratland: According to the article, Memory Protection Devices makes and sells them under a licensing deal and they are used by EMTs on ambulances. Pretty much all of their battery holders use them [12]. It's also used with patients who need life saving battery powered equipment that are not physically capable of changing the battery themselves. They still sell them by the looks of their website, so they have been selling from 2012-present day. 4meter4 (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like more of a reason to create Memory Protection Devices than keep an article about a patent Microsoft holds. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, because it's still marketed as an InstaLoad Battery Carrier by Memory Protection Devices, and it's the actual InstaLoad invention that is the main subject of the sources. I don't think there are enough sources to create an article on Memory Protection Devices either. 4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who markets what as what does not dictate article creation. What matters is sources. Instaload has not received significant, ongoing, sustained coverage in independent reliable sources. It has a handful of brief mentions. Memory Protection Devices can claim to exist, yes, but it has hardly received significant coverage in reliable sources either. If it has, notability is not inherited from one to the other.

In the end, you've got to ask: what have you got for an article? Most of what's there is from press releases, or newsblogs parroting 1 for 1 every press release fact. How much content can you actually cite to independent sources? Not enough to ever grow beyond a stub. This has been a stub for 8 years and it will still be a stub in a decade. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong about a stub. Stubs are useful, and some notable topics only need a brief entry even in professionally published encyclopedias. There's no policy for deleting stubs. Further, you can't predict the future, and how an article may develop over time.4meter4 (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After evaluating the other sources in the article, I think there is enough here with the journal article I found to meet WP:SIGCOV. That journal article substantiates that the product is being used in a meaningful way to the world (ie real world notability). I added that content to the article. 4meter4 (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Ched:@BarcrMac:@Flowing dreams:@SamHolt6: You may want to re-evaluate your decision based on the newly presented reference which is an independent peer reviewed journal article where InstaLoad being made and sold by Memory Protection Devices is the main subject of the article. I have a PDF of the article but I am not certain how to share that kind of file on wikipedia. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Flowing dreams has been blocked as a sock, I've struck through their edit. Doug Weller talk 10:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per 4meter4. I vaguely remember an article, discussing this at about the time it was announced, and comparing it to competing solutions to the underlying problem, but don't remember any of the details any more (and unfortunately don't have time to search for it now). It might have been in a photography-related magazine, possibly even in German language. So, there was at least some (although not much) independent coverage back then. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a single one of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Cmon people - read the guidelines for establishing notability! The references are garbage. This is an announcement from Microsoft, fails as a PRIMARY source as they cannot be used to establish notability. not independent. Exact same failure for this from newatlas.com which is entirely based on an announcement. This reference from electronicproducts.com is an advert/churnalism from a partner company (and written by Tom Blaha the CEO) that licensed the technology, it fails because it is not Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND. This reference is a Primary source and cannot be used to establish notability and it is basically an advert. The last reference inserted by 4meter4 does not appear to be available online but it is also written by Tom Blaha, therefore cannot be used to establish notability as he is the CEO of a connected company. Topic is a total failure of GNG/NCORP. HighKing++ 13:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with your assessment of the source I added. The article went through an academic peer review process, so discrediting it as a un-usable source is not really fair given the publishing criteria of the journal.4meter4 (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi 4meter4, this is a common source of disgruntlement from those who have not properly read/comprehended the guidelines to references to *establish notability*. These are not the same guidelines are sources that may be used to support facts/information within an article. It is incorrect and inaccurate to say that I have "discredited" the reference as an "un-usable source". I have not. I have ruled it as inadmissible *for the purposes of establishing notability* because it is a Primary Source and also fails the test for "Independent Content" since it was written by the CEO - the same guy who was name-checked in Microsoft's Press Release!. Regardless of whether the publication is scholarly or academic, WP:ORGIND is very clear and unambiguous - "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing++ 12:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by 4meter4 (talk · contribs). That the product received significant coverage in an academic peer-reviewed journal strongly establishes notability. I also found this articleInternet Archive in Geek.com that provides two paragraphs of analysis about InstaLoad from journalist Brian Osborne under "Brian's Opinion":

    I can almost hear parents around the world rejoicing over the notion that they won’t have to try to read small battery diagrams on game controllers or toys anymore, ensuring that when they replace batteries they are putting them in the right way. Some people may be confused why Microsoft of all companies would be introducing such a technology. The answer is obvious when you consider Microsoft Hardware makes keyboards, mice and game controllers which are big consumers of batteries.

    It was a nice touch that Microsoft decided to offer a royalty-free licensing program for products designed for people with hearing, vision or learning disabilities. It is these consumers who will probably benefit the most from the InstaLoad technology. It would have been unfortunate if they were forced to pay more for products to gain access to InstaLoad since a paid license to use the technology would add cost to a device.

    Cunard (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Nope. It has been pointed out to you several times that the criteria for establishing notability goes far beyond mere "reliable sources". You know that. There must also be "Independent Content". Nor is an academic source an automatic acceptance. To reiterate what I've said above - we don't make exceptions that "Primary Sources" are acceptable if they're published in an academic peer-reviewed journal. We require "Independent Content" and has been pointed out to you several times in the past, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If you disagree, please point to the relevant guidelines that supports your point of view.
As to "Brian's Opinion", it provides no original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation nor investigation. Brian couches his pronouncements in vagueness - he can "almost" hear parents rejoicing and certain consumers "probably" benefit the most. HighKing++ 12:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 09:41, 7 November 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. Tone 11:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The family of Mahatma Gandhi[edit]

The family of Mahatma Gandhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Given that notability is not inherited, I can't see how this article meets WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment well Gandhi's wife and children all have articles already, so their notability is already established. This article is just tying them all together. Mccapra (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is certainly room for a WP:List article, which might include both notable and non-notable individuals of the family. But the family, as a concept, deserving a page of its own, I can't see. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I suppose Wierd nom! The concept is certainly notable - though none were prominent they have easily received enough coverage, individually and as a group, to meet GNG in his numerous lengthy biographies, and no doubt endless Indian press coverage. But this article is useless, with barely any mention of the subject, and deletion is best. I suspect this nom arises from a discussion I started at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Gandhi_family the day before the nom. As Kautilya3 unhelpfully did not mention this nom there, and I've only just seen it, in accordance with the discussion I have now set up Gandhi family as a disam page between Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru-Gandhi family. The options I set out there were:
    • a) Turning into a proper article by adapting chunks from various bios
    • b) Redirecting to his bio
    • c) a disam page - no doubt most readers are looking for Nehru-Gandhi family

Unless someone wants to do a) this should be redirected to Mahatma Gandhi. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose conversion to a list is another possibility. At present Mahatma Gandhi includes the family tree, but does not I think all mention all the descendents with articles, & a decent list would make sense. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we can always have lists for these things. But for it to be an article, there needs to be detailed coverage in some reliable source. (Sorry that I caught you unawares.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't link basic concepts at me please, that's just RUDE!!! Oh please! There are over a dozen full-length biographies listed at Mahatma Gandhi (I don't claim to have read any). You don't think they have "detailed coverage"? Nor all the individual bios we have? Johnbod (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pleast don't get touchy. You are still missing the point. A reliable source on Gandhi does not equate to a reliable source on the Gandhi family. Where are the sources for this topic? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be patronizing, annoying, and wrong! Given the pretty minimal level of coverage required for notability, are you really claiming that there is insufficient coverage of his family in all the RS on one of the most written-about figures of the last century? Do his biographies begin when he is adult & never cover his life with his wife and children? Johnbod (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Family of Mahatma Gandhi is obviously notable. Most of them have their own Wikipedia article and thinking of John also applies here. -- Harshil want to talk? 16:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does everybody listed in the article have a Wikipedia page? If not, you are unnecessarily dragging them into the public sphere. It could be a WP:BLP issue too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is another wierd and wrongheaded argument, given there are currently only a few words on any of his family, and nobody is in much of a hurry to add more, it seems! Future potential problems are not a valid Afd rationale. Johnbod (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But all of his sons and many grandsons have article of their own. It’s written nowhere that all family members should have article to have article on family. Family is notable and many of family members too. — Harshil want to talk? 02:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See presumption of privacy. I said, "I don't see how this article meets WP:GNG". To prove me wrong, all you guys have to do is to produce two reliable sources that provide substantial coverage of the "Gandhi family" as defined in this article. Until you do so, you don't have a notable topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Among the many things you don't seem to have noticed is that so far I am the nearest thing you have to a supporter in this discussion! Regarding as defined in this article, note that the entire content relating to the family currently in the article is: "The Gandhi family is the family of Mohandas Gandhi (2 October 1869 – 30 January 1948). ... [skip a load of guff about his nicknames]... Gandhi's family consists of him, his wife and his five sons(He had another son who died within the few days after birth)." You notably don't make any claim that there is no substantial coverage of the "Gandhi family", because of course there is, tons of it. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back, especially the family tree. This is not the same family as the politicians. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what "back" where? The tree is already at Mahatma Gandhi (as mentioned above). Johnbod (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 21 members of the family in Category:Mahatma Gandhi family currently have WP articles. A common page for all them is very much inline with our rules of co-existence of categories and lists/articles. The article can be target of various other members too who dont have standalone article but deserve mention in an encyclopedia. For example; Gandhi's grandfather Uttamchand Gandhi was a dewan / diwan. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 14:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wide range of views; notability of topic not really in question; core issue is whether this should be repeated as a stand-alone article outside of being already chronicled in the main BLPs functioning like a DAB-page or more elaborate NavBox; try a re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable and totally legitimate subject. My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thinking about this, the page should be kept and any discussion about whether an article or a list is preferable (my preference would be a list), should be on the talk page. --Enos733 (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: With some work this page can evolve into something very helpful on the lines of Nehru–Gandhi family, give many individuals listed in the page already have wikipedia pages. This would bring clarity and context to a reader who would others find it difficult to piece together with only the invividual articles. Arunram (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep having read through the nomination and delete votes again I can’t see a string enough case for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G. Tone 11:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Growing Man[edit]

Growing Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfD heading for a NC (two D, two M, and two K); however, the willingness of Keeps ro merge, means a merge could also be considered; try a relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. I would tend to think that someone who types "Growing man" into the search bar in Wikipedia is looking for Development of the human body, Developmental psychology or Maturity (psychological). They're also quite likely to be a child, who might be confused to find an article about a comic book character. The current content, if kept, should be moved to Growing Man (comics) (and if merged it should still be moved there in order to retain attribution). I don't really care whether the article about the comic book character is kept, merged or deleted.—S Marshall T/C 10:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The "character" is extremely minor, and there seem to be no reliable, secondary sources discussing it. At the very least, I was unable to find any, and none of the "Keep" or "Merge" votes above provided any. Thus, merging non-notable, only primary sourced information to other articles does not solve anything, it just conflates the target article/list with even more non-notable cruft. There are also the concerns that S Marshall brought up regarding the article's name space, so regardless of the results of this AFD, that is definitely an issue that should be addressed. Rorshacma (talk) 16:46, 7 November 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 userfy. I'll give it to the first person who jumped on the offer, @Chelyx:. (non-admin closure) ミラP 05:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dalcha Lungiambula[edit]

Dalcha Lungiambula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter who has only fought one fight in top tier promotion which fails WP:MMABIO requirement of 3 fights. There is no guarantee to secure 2 more fights in UFC and it will take at least one more year if and only if the fighter secure more 2 fights under UFC which means WP:TOOSOON. Subject also does not pass WP:GNG as sources found and provided are routine sport reports. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy I did a quick search, and found 147 hits on Google and 205 on Google News (many of which were relevant). I am not sure that he meets notability criteria yet. But I do not want to see this article deleted - it would be much better to move it to user-space, where it can be built on over time, and moved back into article space if and when the subject becomes more notable. Toddy1 (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy with reserve I agree to the above, but it is quite hard the fighter will have two new top tier fights in the following six months. --Chelyx (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is not only rare for a fighter to have 2 new fights in 6 months (usually it take one year), we have to considered if the fighter or the opponent pull out of a fight due to injury, surgery, fails to make wait, visa issues, personal issues and fails drug test, medical suspensions after a fight which could take up to 6 months prior allow to compete again which will force the fighter to pull out of the fight and all these incidents are extremely common for it happens all the time. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are some definite problems with this article. His UFC fight in Russia has not yet happened, but the article says it was in September. I see no evidence he was an ADCC world champion and the article claims he won that title in 2016 although the events are held in odd numbered years. There's no evidence he competed in the 2016 IBJJF world championships and merely competing would not be an indicator of notability (no qualifying is required). At this time I'm not seeing anything to support a claim of WP notability. If someone wants to fix the article in their own workspace, that's fine with me--but it doesn't belong in the main article space of WP (at least not yet). Papaursa (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You can userfy it to my userspace, I will monitor it and fix it accordingly --Chelyx (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • He fought earlier today, thus has fought two UFC fights. In my opinion, he should have a Wikipedia page. I'm not an expert on the policies used to determine notability for MMA fighters though. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He lost the fight via knockout and UFC can release the fighter who lost their last fight if they chose to. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 22:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I for once saw him in a Facebook UFC video and was wondering who he was. The fact that he participated in UFC and has a notable knockout (on the receiving end) means he should have a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.237.240 (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia is not a platform for fans to indicated a subject should have a Wikipedia entry because what they saw on Facebook or TV or etc. but subject needs to pass GNG or WP:MMABIO in this case. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And surprisingly, Wikipedia is written for such fans. I might be wrong in interpreting though, but no wonder there is more articles on sportspeople, film, music, games and people who play in them rather than scientists. ;)--Biografer (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per above.4meter4 (talk) 19:27, 14 November 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. Tone 11:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parag Biswas[edit]

Parag Biswas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A previous article of this name was speedy-deleted as promotional in 2017. In the 5 days since this current instance was moved into mainspace it has had the attention of a handful of WP:SPAs, mostly now blocked, but the article remains lacking in reliable 3rd party sources. Establishing a consensus on notability seems worthwhile, so I am bringing this to AfD. I am not seeing evidence that the subject meets the WP:MUSICBIO criteria (perhaps coming closest with his involvement in one song from the movie Nabab, though I am not seeing evidence that meets criterion 10). AllyD (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete couldn't find any significant reliable sources coverage on google so WP:BASIC does not seem passed and also he has only a few singles released with no albums so it may be WP:TOOSOON imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Per WP:CSD#A7. not enough to establish notability Singer, Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG. fails WP:NMUSIC. Younger singer & early news for any such coverage to exist then it means WP:TOOSOON.-Nahal(T) 08:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No meets the WP:MUSICBIO --SalmanZ (talk) 22:54, 13 November 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 Draftify and then Speedy delete per G7. The article has been moved to draftspace and the draft was then speedy deleted by RHaworth per G7 (author requested deletion or blanked the page). (non-admin closure) 94rain Talk 12:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sahibnoor Singh[edit]

Sahibnoor Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks in-depth WP:RS from multiple sources to pass WP:GNG. Just one reference from a reliable news source is not enough to qualify for a Wiki page. Meeanaya (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Meeanaya: I checked the article and i think the article is Reliable but anyways maybe your are right. Can you please explain the reasons briefly for nominating it for articles for deletion. I have cited all the points with multiple reliable sources. Thankyou Rajusinghchan (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The vast majority of sourcing looks suspiciously like paid content, especially with all the "bureau" and "partnered content" tags. At least one (possibly several) explicitly state in the disclaimer that the publishing site doesn't guarantee any sort of editorial control or fact-checking, and several look like it's the same article, rehashed. Aside from that, the interviews don't confer notability, and nor does his own YouTube videos. In fact, I haven't seen one source that has an actual journalist in a by-line (that isn't an interview). So, while at a glance, it would look like he meets inclusion criteria, closer inspection of the sources definitely indicates a distinct lack of reliable sources. In addition, given that the only other article created/edited by this user was initially done as a paid contribution, I do seriously suspect an undeclared COI here - doesn't necessarily matter much in the context of the notability of the topic, but it should probably be noted for future reference. Waggie (talk) 07:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I have deleted the article but i wanted to make sure that the wikipedia article was not paid. Thankyou @Waggie: Rajusinghchan (talk) 08:02, 7 November 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. Tone 11:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies[edit]

Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are only a few sources that verify the existence of the establishment, but nothing whatsoever to suggest notability per WP:GNG or WP:ORG — MarkH21 (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:25, 7 November 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. Tone 11:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qalandar Shahbaz University of Modern Sciences[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Qalandar Shahbaz University of Modern Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Private university which hadn't recieved WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:NORG. Also, not recognized by the Higher Education Commission (Pakistan), see here. Störm (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close as degree-awarding is sufficient for notability claims, regardless of any fixable concerns. Not sure if nominator has checked previous two AFDs. Meeanaya (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They can't award degrees. They have schools and colleges which are affiliated with different universities. Itself, it isn't degree awarding institute. Störm (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are no sources at all on this article. It is far past time that Wikipedia mandated every article had at least one source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 9 November 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) 07:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mavis Taintor[edit]

Mavis Taintor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject contested a few times for political position and fails to secure majority vote - see HERE-1 and HERE-2. Fails WP:NPOL CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles for being candidates in elections they did not win; a person has to win the election and thereby hold the office to claim notability as a politician, and otherwise qualifies to have an article only if (a) she already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her an article anyway (e.g. Cynthia Nixon), or (b) you can show substantive evidence that her candidacy was uniquely much more notable than everybody else's candidacies in some way that would make her a special case (e.g. Christine O'Donnell). And no, the fact that a handful of local campaign coverage exists does not automatically get her over WP:GNG, either, because every candidate in every district in every election can always show a handful of local campaign coverage. This does not demonstrate that either of the two conditions for the notability of unsuccessful political candidates has been passed, however. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat above. Unsuccessful political candidates do not normally meet WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a politician yet, but a businesswomen no coverage worth speaking about. Just defeated at District 33. Not this time. scope_creepTalk 11:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unelected canadiates for political office are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seems like we have a clear consensus here that a) the topic currently doesn't meet WP:NPOL and b) that they will more likely than not meet NPOL in a few weeks anyhow. There are also claims of this meeting WP:BASIC but it doesn't seem like it is considered adequate, as well as somewhat thinly supported concerns about advertising. Thus this is a delete, although if/when she is elected people can just ask for restoration at WP:REFUND without having to go through deletion review or other complex procedures. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren McLean[edit]

Lauren McLean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is a city council of Boise City and currently is running of mayor position. Fails WP:NPOL for a politician does not hold a national position and sources for their up coming campaign. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising campgain and if subject is elected in the future, then article can be recreated. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my earlier statement. According to WP:POLOUTCOMES, "Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD" For reference, Boise, Idaho is the largest city in Idaho with a population of approximately 205,000. It is also the 97th largest city in an America out of 314 cities with a population over 100,000. Seeing as it is very likely that McLean will become mayor after the December 3rd runoff election, I see no point in deleting the page only to have to recreate it in a few weeks. KidAd (talk) 06:06, 7 November 2019 editor is the creator of the page
  • Comment: KidAd You are the creator of the page. Pls state you reason to vote keep based on Wikipedia notability guidelines.Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment was in progress when you inserted my status as the creator of the page. KidAd (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From KidAd's talk page to me: It is very likely that this woman will be the next mayor of Boise, Idaho within the next few weeks. As the current mayor, David Bieter has a page, she ought to have one as well. If she is elected then that is a different story. As it is now she doesn't appear to meet WP:NPOL Gbawden (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment - Creator's (KidAd) opinion on the subject likely to get elected is not the variable for notability acceptance and plays no role here. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation in December if she wins the runoff. Candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates; she has to win the election and thereby hold the mayoralty to claim notability under our inclusion standards for mayors, and people's predictions about whether she's likely to win or not carry no weight. So as of today, the only standard we can judge her against is the one for city councillors — and the standard for city councillors is not being passed, because it requires evidence that she's uniquely much more notable than most other city councillors. Yes, Boise is a large enough city that its mayors would generally be accepted as passing WP:NPOL, so this can certainly be recreated if she actually wins the mayoral election — but as of today, she's still only a mayoral candidate who has not passed NPOL yet. And since administrators have the ability to restore deleted articles with one click of a button if circumstances change, the fact that the article might have to be recreated in a month is not a reason to exempt her from the normal process today. Bearcat (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh - If, as seems very likely, this AFD gets re-listed twice to get a clear consensus (i.e., once on the 14th, and then once again on the 21st), we will practically be at the day of the run-off election (3rd of December) by the time the consensus has to be assessed (some time in the week after the 28th of November). McLean is an overwhelming favourite to win that election as she had a near-majority (45%) in the first round. There is Ooodles of coverage of her in state-level media so she's practically guaranteed to meet WP:BASIC, WP:NPOL at that point. It seems a no-brainer just to KEEP until election day. I normally agree with CASSIOPEIA but I think they're wrong to repeated invoke the fact that KidAd created the article as though this were a convincing argument for deletion - you can just as easily argue that the page-creator is often the person who is best placed to discuss the notability of the subject. Similarly Bearcat's idea that we delete today and then recreate on election day seem needlessly bureaucratic, especially when you consider that deletion would likely not take place today, but instead just days before the election after relisting of the AFD. FOARP (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rule that relisting always has to happen; it's an option for cases where consensus is still uncertain after seven days, not a universal feature of deletion process that all discussions automatically go through as a matter of course. And even if there is a relisting, there can still be just one and not two — and if she doesn't win the election, then this will just have to be relisted for deletion again anyway. And furthermore, if we set a moratorium on listing unelected candidates' articles for deletion when the election is only X number of days away, then by definition we're setting a binding precedent that would permit every candidate in every election to just suddenly flood Wikipedia with their campaign brochures on Day X, right when they most want that last minute burst of extra campaign publicity in the hopes of pushing them over the top. So no matter how many days away the election happens to be, we still have to treat unelected candidate articles exactly the same as we would at any other time. I'll grant that the process gives us a bit of wiggle room in cases where the election is literally just a matter of hours away, but a blanket moratorium on listing candidate articles for deletion a month out from election day would be dangerous to Wikipedia's mission and mandate. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rule that re-listing take place, but unless there's a very clear consensus - which as of now there isn't - it will be re-listed (observe all the re-listed articles on today's AFD page). WP:NODEADLINE is a important philosophical point, if only one expressed in an essay, which I think points towards just waiting for the result 26 days from now which is almost certainly going to see this lady elected as mayor of a major city. And this is before we even discuss whether this AFD might get sent to WP:DELREV. FOARP (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's also no rule that the article would even have to go to DELREV at all. If an article gets deleted because the subject was only a candidate at the time of the discussion, but then wins the election in the end, there's no rule that DELREV has to weigh in before the article can be restored or recreated. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I for one certainly would WP:DELREV this article if it were deleted based on the present state of consensus, even ignoring my vote. FOARP (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FOARP, Apologies if I was not clear on my previous message above. I was not saying the creator could not discuss the notability of the subject here, but I was respond to User Gbawden "From KidAd's talk page to me: It is very likely that this woman will be the next mayor of Boise". As we stand today, the subject does not pass WP:NPOL irregardless how we look at it. Without bias or setting a precedence that because opinion indicates the candidate is likely to be nominated then the page should be not be deleted in Wikipedia. If the article need to be recreated again after the election, then it is just a one click away. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She could also pass based on WP:BASIC (see, e.g., 1 2 3 4) and the objections based on WP:POL are almost certainly going to fall away on the 3rd of December. What's the rush? PS - CASSIOPEIA I think you accidentally deleted a discussion between me and Bearcat due to an edit-conflict. (already fixed) FOARP (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Every candidate in every election can always show a handful of local campaign coverage in the local media — so such coverage does not automatically translate into a BASIC pass that exempts them from having to pass NPOL, because every candidate in every election would always be exempted from having to pass NPOL if it did. So the notability of a candidate is not based on the principle of "does some media coverage of the campaign exist?", it's based on the principle of "does that media coverage demonstrate a reason why the candidacy is much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would satisfy the ten year test for enduring notability even if they lose?" And per WP:CRYSTAL, our notability standards for politicians are not based on anybody's predictions about whether the candidate is likely to win or not; they're based entirely on who did win after the ballots have been counted, not on advance punditry about who is or isn't "favoured" to win. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:FOARP My apologies. I somehow accidentally removed your and User:Bearcat's edits when I made my edit just now. Thanks to Bearcat for restoring them. Same thought as per User:Bearcat regarding WP:BASIC does not apply here for campaign coverage in local media. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat/CASSIOPEIA - WP:BASIC doesn't trump WP:NPOL? Maybe, but WP:NPOL is also not a trump-card to play against WP:BASIC. Indeed, there is, as far as I am aware, no consensus on what the interplay between the WP:BASIC and the more specific guidelines is. A WP:BASIC-pass can be enough to save notability even when guidelines like WP:NPOL aren't met. WP:CRYSTAL has been invoked, but this is a guide about article-content, and doesn't effect the freedom of editors to use common sense in assess notability to see if it is plausible that something/someone is likely to remain notable (see for example the tendency to "Keep for now" when assessing the notability of recent events that are likely to continue being covered in reliable sources). We've discuss the possible precedent effect of simply staying proceedings, but this is a pretty distinct case and easy to distinguish from others based on the facts (how many cities of this size have this kind of run-off election with this kind of likely result?).
But I don't want this to turn into an abstract discussion about guidelines - it's pure commonsense not to simply delete an article mere days before we can be fairly sure it will meet WP:NPOL anyway. Moreover, we know that McLean is already in the first run-off election ever held in Boise, a city - a state-capital indeed - with a population (~230,000 city-centre, ~350,000 urban, ~700,000 metro) the equal of some small countries, which appears to indicate at least some level of notability already. FOARP (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just as before November 4, 2008, Barack Obama was not the 44th President of United States irregardless how many supporters of his chanting "Yes we can" or how many positive "opinion poll" results conducted and we could not make an entry in Obama page in Wikipedia to indicate he surely would have won the Presidency race because logic and common sense predicated that is WP:CYRSTAL. Here is the same, as election has yet to be held that means no elected politicians could be announced, that means it is WP:CYRSTAL and subject fails WP:NPOL as per common sense and Wikipedia guidelines . CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is proposing to list McLean as mayor in the article - merely stating that she is very likely to be mayor within days and that her notability should be viewed in this light for the purposes of this AFD. Obama was already clearly notable at the date you are discussing. I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Deleting this article will in all likelihood simply result in it being mechanically re-created on the 3rd of December - what's the point? FOARP (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that if we decree that there's now a moratorium on deleting candidate articles 30 days or less before election day just because there's a chance that the person might win, then every candidate in every election automatically has free rein to bum rush Wikipedia with their campaign brochures in the final month. And by exactly the same token, if we decide that purely routine coverage of the election campaign in the local media is enough to hand a not yet elected candidate a free pass over GNG that exempts them from actually having to pass NPOL, then every candidate in every election automatically gets that pass and nobody ever has to pass NPOL anymore.
Simply put, GNG is not just "two or more pieces of media coverage exist, and nothing else matters after that" — it also tests for factors like the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about the topic, the geographic range of where the coverage is coming from, and the context of what they're getting covered for. Some kinds of coverage simply do not count for as much toward the notability equation as others do — and routine local coverage of an election campaign in which the subject is still only a candidate, and has not already won as of today, is the weak kind of coverage and not the strong kind. That is, if and when she does win, then the campaign coverage can be used to pad out the article with additional content and sourcing — but as long as she's still only a candidate, the existence of campaign coverage does not get her over the bar in and of itself, precisely because every candidate for mayor in every city can always show the existence of some campaign coverage.
We have an established consensus that it is not our mandate or goal to be an indiscriminate repository of campaign brochures for political candidates, so the notability bar for politicians is holding a notable political office and not just running for one — and precisely because some local campaign coverage always exists for every candidate in every election, that fact is not automatically enough to deem a person as passing GNG and therefore exempted from having to pass NPOL. And by the same token, musicians are not automatically notable just because you can find one or two articles in their hometown media about their winning of a local battle of the bands competition — our criteria for musical notability require nationalizing signifiers of importance, such as having a national charting hit or winning a Grammy. And writers are not automatically notable just because you can find one or two articles in their hometown media about the fact that they won a local poetry contest — our criteria for writer notability require nationalized notability markers, such as having a national bestseller or winning a Pulitzer. High school athletes aren't exempted from having to pass our notability standards for sportspeople just because they got a couple of human interest pieces in their local media about the fact that they only have three toes on their kicking foot. And on and so forth. Politicians aren't being treated differently from other occupations here — we have a long established consensus that the existence of a small handful of local coverage in a person's local media is not in and of itself an automatic GNG-based exemption from actually having to pass our quantified notability criteria for their occupation, and that applies to virtually every occupation and not just to politicians alone.
And, again, if she does win the election, then an administrator can restore the article in two seconds flat, with one easy click on one button. So the fact that she might win the election is not a reason to ignore the rules, thus setting a precedent that would inherently disembowel NPOL entirely. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The coverage is not significant enough to rise abouve routine for mayoral candidates and city council members. Even if elected mayor of Boise she would not be default notable, she is not even close right now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now (while allowing the article to be recreated in draft space). As others have stated, candidates are not presumed notable under WP:NPOL. While there is a timing issue surrounding an AfD of a political candidate close to an election, the usual standard of a delayed AfD is about 8-10 days from an election (to account for one relist). As Bearcat points out above, there is a concern that Wikipedia could become a repository of campaign brochures in the waning days of an election (and I can attest, they do and they are hard to patrol [especially when they come to AfD]). In the interim, there is a possibility of a redirect to the 2019 Boise mayoral election. --Enos733 (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And just to clarify further, even at the "8-10 days" mark there still isn't actually a moratorium on initiating the AFD on a person who's still only an unelected candidate as of the moment you find the article — we just have a bit of wiggle room at the back end about taking a couple of extra days to close the discussion. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 11 November 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. Tone 11:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Find My[edit]

Find My (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inclusion criteria not establish as per Wikipedia:Notability (software). Jason Quinn (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination's vague wave is unclear. This app is a merger of two apps which both have articles. It's going to be developed to add the features of Tile too. As iOS has over a billion users, notability is inevitable. I noticed it myself when upgrading to iOS 13. Andrew D. (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete:keep If an article is introduced like this in 2019 with sourcing like this it wastes everyone's time. Subject to solid Wikipedia:Verifiability if Apple has 'merged' Find My iPhone and Find My Friends to Find My I'd suggest we should be doing the same. The least painful may to do this to delete the current Find My; move save Find My iPhone to Find My iPhone leaving a redirect and adapting to incorpoate Find My the do a merge of Find My Friends into Find My]. ... Okay ... I'll volunteer (without totally committing due to my other RL and WP purposes) to do a quick and dirty brute force kludge of that but I'd prefer someone else volunteered and I would like someone to dig out independent references ... And I'd prefer to do one merge than two hence delete. And please consider to get up to WP:RS sources before dePRODing something PRODed by an administer of anyone likely on WP:NPP. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neither the prod nor this nomination mentioned reliable sources; they just made a vague wave at Wikipedia:Notability (software). That says right at the top, "Before nominating an unsourced article for deletion, make sure to verify that it is non-notable, not just missing citations". And it's just an essay and so is quite inadequate as a reason to unilaterally delete something. In this case, the nature of the topic means that we can be sure that there are plenty of sources out there; like Macworld, for example.
What's more, this software is used for a critical purpose; to locate lost family members or a lost phone. Such incidents are quite common and stressful. At such a time, a distraught person may come to Wikipedia for information about this as our content is increasingly delivered by household appliances such as smart speakers. We should therefore ensure that our information is comprehensive and covers all versions during this transition period. A "quick and dirty brute force kludge" is therefore not appropriate. We should develop this content in accordance with our policies including WP:ATD; WP:BITE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have elected to switch to keep in the hope nom. {U|Jason Quinn}} will do a speedy keep as pragmatically there will be 3 pages here 2 of which will likely end up as redirects and merging is best concentrated on and discussed outside WP:AFD. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia:Notability (software) is an essay that was never vetted by the community at large; it's not a guideline, and the applicable guideline in this case is WP:GNG. I've added 3 sources to the article, and there are now a total of 4 independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of Find My:
    1. Cipriani, Jason (September 21, 2019). "Use the new Find My app to hunt down your friends and your iPhone". CNET. Retrieved 2019-10-10.
    2. Moren, Dan (September 8, 2019). "iOS 13 Find My App: How to Track Your iPhone or Friends". Tom's Guide. Retrieved 2019-11-07.
    3. Evans, Jonny (21 June 2019). "How 'Find My' Mac works in macOS Catalina and iOS 13". Computerworld. Retrieved 2019-11-07.
    4. Greenberg, Andy (June 5, 2019). "Apple's 'Find My' Feature Uses Some Very Clever Cryptography". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2019-11-07.
The merge suggested by Djm-leighpark makes sense, but I think it would be easier for Find My iPhone and Find My Friends to be merged into Find My, than to delete this article, merge the other two, and then rename the resulting article to Find My again. — Newslinger talk 11:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We shouldn't rush to merge because plenty of people are still on ios 12 and earlier versions and so might be confused by content about the new merged version, which has a different icon and interface. Andrew D. (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about the article lacking notability had everything to do with lack of reliable sources and the articles lack of them. I see non-policy arguments above (like suggesting it's notable simply because it's part of a popular OS) and some unfair suggestions that my comment about notability didn't have anything to do with reliable sources when that's the very unpinning of what notability means here. If you wish to establish notability with reliable sources by all means do so but I see no compelling reason above to invoke Wikipedia:Ignore all rules here, which seems to be what's going on. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I cited four policies and a guideline in my comment above. The nominations didn't cite any policies or guidelines; just an essay. See WP:POT and WP:SAUCE. Andrew D. (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've just noticed there move/merge history at Talk:Find My iPhone and a consensus at Talk:Find My iPhone. The following refs added to the article should demonstrate WP:GNG; this is mainstream core IOS stuff so its pretty visibile I guess.[1][2][3][4]. Moran was definitely a hands on review; Holic maybe more form the press releasse; Greening is reporting after a demo.

References

  1. ^ Cipriani, Jason (September 21, 2019). "Use the new Find My app to hunt down your friends and your iPhone". CNET. Retrieved 2019-10-10.
  2. ^ Moren, Dan (September 8, 2019). "iOS 13 Find My App: How to Track Your iPhone or Friends". Tom's Guide. Retrieved 2019-11-07.
  3. ^ Evans, Jonny (21 June 2019). "How 'Find My' Mac works in macOS Catalina and iOS 13". Computerworld. Retrieved 2019-11-07.
  4. ^ Greenberg, Andy (June 5, 2019). "Apple's 'Find My' Feature Uses Some Very Clever Cryptography". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2019-11-07.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd respectfully comment that would mean raising a merge proposal per WP:PROMERGEWP:MERGEPROP due that discussion already having been made within the last month as mentioned above and it is inappropriate for WP:AFD to override such a discussion as merge like marriage should be acceptable to all parties. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is probably a case where addressing Consider improving the page to address the concerns raised. prior to dePROD especially where the PRODer can take you to WP:AFD is a better course of action unless one wants to make a WP:POINT.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Newslinger and OlSaffriveons have made massive improvements to the article[13], proving it passes the general notability guidelines just fine. Dream Focus 10:15, 8 November 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) 08:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Takuya Murata[edit]

Takuya Murata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only a handful of journal articles with 0-1 citations, based on Google Scholar search (ignoring the math and biology articles by authors of the same name). No suggestion whatsoever of passing WP:SCHOLAR or WP:GNG. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the most you can say is that he wrote a book chapter, he isn't notable enough. There appears to be a different Takuya Murata, a molecular biologist at the University of Tokyo, with moderately well-cited publications (the top one of which was retracted) but since the area is totally different I think it must be a different person. (I didn't see any math articles; there is no one by this name on MathSciNet.) For the Takuya Murata described here, we have no evidence of passing WP:PROF nor any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein: There is at least one arXiv preprint, like this, but unlikely to be the same person. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t know if that matters, but that (arxiv one) is me. I am not the subject of this article too. My name isn’t that uncommon. —- Taku (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Fail passes WP:SCHOLAR or WP:GNG.--SalmanZ (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete getting a chapter published in a book does not make one notable. I still have not created an article on historian Jay Buckley, and he has authored multiple books.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. It appears he was in a graduate program at the Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies, but I can't find any solid information about him. Instead, I'm only finding passing mentions of him. For the moment, he doesn't pass any of the notability guidelines. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:03, 12 November 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 03:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great American Cookies[edit]

Great American Cookies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only one of the sources that is more than a press release is the announcement of a merge from steetinsider, and announcements like that do not meet WP:NCORP. All other refs are press releases or a blurb about the ceo. All I can find in searching is announcements of openings of individual stores.

I've heard of them, so I was surprised not to find any usable RSs for notability DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added three sources I found on newspapers.com that cover the company in at least fair detail (an AP article as an inline citation and two Atlanta Journal-Constitution pieces in Further Reading. Admittedly, the Brett source is not so independent.) The McWilliams source could probably replace one of the press release sources as an inline citation. There is some more coverage of the CEO (he's the namesake of the business school at Kennesaw State and was CEO of Caribou Coffee), but I don't think that helps our notability here. I think the company is close to getting over the GNG bar, but if not, I hope we could at least consider redirecting to Global Franchise Group. Larry Hockett (Talk) 08:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Wilbur, Todd (2002). Even More Top Secret Recipes: More Amazing Kitchen Clones of America's Favorite Brand-Name Foods. New York: Penguin Group. p. 76. ISBN 978-0-452-28319-0. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
    2. Newmark, Avery (2018-12-04). "8 things you didn't know about Atlanta's Great American Cookies". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
    3. McWilliams, Jeremiah (2010-09-03). "Great American Cookies tries to sweeten its year". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
    4. Brett, Jennifer (2019-01-25). ""It's not complicated. It's cookies." Wit and wisdom from Michael Coles". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
    5. Friedman, Lindsay (2016-06-06). "Franchise of the Day: Crunch Into a Cookie With This Franchise". Entrepreneur. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
    6. Shepard, Scott (1985-10-20). "$100 million a year — a lot of chocolate chips". The Anniston Star. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10 – via Newspapers.com.
    7. O'Herin, Tim (1982-12-14). "Atlanta-based operation spreads nationwide: Cookie shops in the chips at malls". The Oklahoman. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10 – via Newspapers.com.
    8. Shumacher, Harold V. (1983-10-12). "Cookies chip of millions in sales: Chocolate variety gains a corner as most popular in mall market". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10 – via Newspapers.com.
    9. Fitzgerald, Becky (1996-12-18). "Local and area entrepreneurs turn ideas into ₵ dough". The Salina Journal. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10 – via Newspapers.com.
    10. Hall, Beverly Y. (1984-09-13). "Cornering the cookie market: Expansion chips falling into place for Atlanta firm" (pages 1 and 2). The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10. – via Newspapers.com.
    11. Chavez, Tim (1985-08-24). "Taco Mayo Adds 3 City, State Locations During Summer". The Oklahoman. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
    Sources with quotes
    1. Wilbur, Todd (2002). Even More Top Secret Recipes: More Amazing Kitchen Clones of America's Favorite Brand-Name Foods. New York: Penguin Group. p. 76. ISBN 978-0-452-28319-0. Retrieved 2019-11-10.

      The book notes:

      Top Secret Version of Great American Cookies White Chunk Macadamia

      When Arthur Karp shared his grandmother's favorite chocolate chip cookie recipe with Michael Coles, the business partners knew they had a hit on their hands. They opened their first Great American Cookies store in 1977 in The Perimeter Mall in Atlanta, Georgia. Now with more than 350 stores in the chain, these cookies have quickly become a favorite, just begging to be cloned. The chain bakes the cookies in convection ovens at the low temperature of 280 degrees for around 16 to 17 minutes.

    2. Newmark, Avery (2018-12-04). "8 things you didn't know about Atlanta's Great American Cookies". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.

      The article notes:

      Founded in 1977, the company started as a chocolate chip cookie recipe passed on by the grandmother of one of the founders. When the company began looking for real estate, many landlords passed on leasing to the company believing standalone cookie stores couldn't make enough money. But the group persevered and eventually found success at their first location at Perimeter Mall in Atlanta. That flagship store is still successfully slinging cookies 41 years later.

      ...

      You can find Great American Cookies in locations across the United States, as well as internationally in Bahrain, Chile, Guam, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

      ...

      Great American Cookies was originally named The Original Great American Chocolate Chip Cookie Company − quite the mouthful. In 1985, the company renamed to Great American Cookies Company and later shortened even further, to Great American Cookies.

    3. McWilliams, Jeremiah (2010-09-03). "Great American Cookies tries to sweeten its year". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.

      The article notes:

      From its start in 1977 at Perimeter Mall, Great American Cookies has become one of the country's biggest cookie suppliers. With 293 locations in the U.S. and 12 in international markets,  it competes with brands such as Mrs. Fields' Original Cookies Inc. and Nestle Toll House Cafe by Chip, when opened 10 years ago and now has more than 100 cafes either open in or in various stages of development in the U.S. and Puerto Rico.

      Great American Cookies' sales have been flat so far this year. The company, which declined to give dollar figures, said the past few weeks have seen an increase in sales compared to the same period a year ago, and the important Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays still await. But ingredient prices are up, consumers are trying to save money and things are far from plush.

      Great American Cookies is in the hands of new owners. Global Franchise Group, an affiliate of California investment group Levine Leichtman Capital Partners, took over from NexCen Brands Inc. on July 30 and now controls MaggieMoo's, Pretzelmaker/Pretzel Time, Marble Slab Creamery, Shoebox New York and The Athlete's Foot Brands in addition to the cookie outlets -- amounting to about 1,700 stores in more than 35 countries.

      About 20 people work in shipping and production at the Great American Cookies facility near I-20, sending products to Mexico and Canada and as far as Guam, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. The company is in the early stages of international expansion but has found that overseas consumers are receptive to its existing product line, including the original chocolate chip recipe.

      The article includes quotes from people affiliated with Great American Cookies.
    4. Brett, Jennifer (2019-01-25). ""It's not complicated. It's cookies." Wit and wisdom from Michael Coles". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.

      The article notes:

      Michael Coles literally crashed. He literally burned. He literally had to learn to put one foot in front of the other.

      The memoir from the entrepreneur who founded Great American Cookies and later served as CEO of Caribou Coffee isn’t a collection of cliched business tropes.

      Instead, “Time to Get Tough: How Cookies, Coffee and a Crash Let to Success in Business and Life” (written with Catherine M. Lewis and published by University of Georgia Press), is a rollicking, revealing read.

      ...

      Great American Cookies, which started with a Perimeter Mall location in 1977, flourished in the golden age of shopping malls. Today, many malls across the country are struggling, repurposing or even closing. Can they turn things around?

      The article contains an interview with Michael Coles.
    5. Friedman, Lindsay (2016-06-06). "Franchise of the Day: Crunch Into a Cookie With This Franchise". Entrepreneur. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.

      The aticle nots:

      Nothing is more American than a good ole sugar rush, and Great American Cookies is more than happy to provide one.

      The company’s got the zeal of proud tradition, too, founded with a generations-old family recipe for gourmet cookies. Launched in 1977 in Atlanta, it started franchising the same year and has offered fresh brownies, cookies and cakes ever since.

    6. Shepard, Scott (1985-10-20). "$100 million a year — a lot of chocolate chips". The Anniston Star. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes:

      One hundred million dollars a year — that's how the cookies crumble for Michael Coles and Arthur Karp, founders of the largest retail cookie company in the United States.

      Coles and Karp opened their first Great American Chocolate Chip Cookie Company Inc. store in 1977 at a shopping mall in suburban Atlanta.

      With an initial investment of $8,000, they figured they had to sell $12,000 worth of cookies the first month just to break even.

      But their revenue that month approached $35,000, and before they could add up their receipts for the second month, they had received more than 300 franchise inquiries from 20 states.

      Today their company has 300 stores in 38 states, generating $100 million a year a year in revenue makinng Great American Chocolate Chip Cookie Company the largest chain of retail cookies stores in the nation.

    7. O'Herin, Tim (1982-12-14). "Atlanta-based operation spreads nationwide: Cookie shops in the chips at malls". The Oklahoman. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10 – via Newspapers.com.

      The aricle notes:

      The Original Great American Chocolate Chip Cookie Co. is one such business. ...

      ...

      The Atlanta-based company cooked up the idea for the company about four years ago and the shops have since spread nationwide.

      There are basically five types of chocolate chip cookies available at the stores. They include: the original chocolate chip, walnut, oatmeal-walnut with raisins, doubble fudge and peanut butter. There is also a cookie of the month, which is peanut butter banana this month.

    8. Shumacher, Harold V. (1983-10-12). "Cookies chip of millions in sales: Chocolate variety gains a corner as most popular in mall market". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes:

      By 1977, similar shops began appearing throughout the country.

      That also was the year that two Atlanta entrepreneurs, Arthur Karp and Michael Coles, decided to follow the trend, leasing space in Perimeter Mall for the first store. Since then the Original Great American Chocolate Chip Cookie Co. has become the largest retail cookie outfit in the country. The 170 stores, mainly in shopping malls, are expected to gross $50 million this year.

    9. Fitzgerald, Becky (1996-12-18). "Local and area entrepreneurs turn ideas into ₵ dough". The Salina Journal. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes:

      Just as the name implies, Great American Chocolate Chip Cookie Co. shops can be found all over the United States and Guam. Two men founded the company in 1977 and operated it from a garage until opening a store in an Atlanta mall. The 60 stores the partners own further increase the company's visibility.

    10. Hall, Beverly Y. (1984-09-13). "Cornering the cookie market: Expansion chips falling into place for Atlanta firm" (pages 1 and 2). The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10. – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes:

      There's big dough in cookies for the world's largest cookie retailer, The Original Great American Chocolate Chip Cookie Co. Inc.

      The Atlanta company's name may be a mouthful, but the dollar signs generated by cookie sales are easy to digest for company chairman Michael Coles and president Arthur Karp.

      In business for seven years, the firm has gobled up a good portion of the nation's retail cookie market and generates about $50 million annually, its executives say.

      ...

      The Original Great American Chocolate Chip Cookie Co. bakes six kinds of cookies that cost about 40 cents each. They also create two-pound edible "greeting cookies" personalized with messages.

      Seventy-five thousand pounds of cookie batter is made daily at the company's headquarters here and is shipped to each of its 230 locations nationwide.

      The article further notes:

      Cole and Karp came up with the idea of mass cookie basking in the garage of Karp's home. With the help of their wives, they tested a cookie recipe that belonged to the great-great grandmother of Karp's wife.

      Mrs. Karp's great-great grandmother was a West Virginia Blackfoot Indian and, according to Karp, chocolate chip cookies were originated by American Indians who first chopped chocolate and blended it with sweeted dough.

    11. Chavez, Tim (1985-08-24). "Taco Mayo Adds 3 City, State Locations During Summer". The Oklahoman. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.

      The article notes:

      Coles is a marathon enthusiast. His company is sponsoring the "1985 Race Across America," an annual bicycle event broadcast nationally. The race cut across Oklahoma, which allowed him to visit his state stores.

      Coles and his business partner, Arthur Karp, started the company in 1977 with an $8,000 investment.

      The pair had tired of the stressful clothing business, where they were first rooted professionally.

      Their first store opened in June 1977. Coles and Karp reportedly first tested their cookie batter in a suburban garage.

      ...

      It has 5,300 employees.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Great American Cookies to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:38, 10 November 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Banerjee (activist)[edit]

Rahul Banerjee (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod was disputed. This article came to my attention via this ANI report about canvassing at a related Afd, about a neologism that Banerjee came up with. This article relies entirely on primary sources; I only see three publications that fit WP:RS; Asia Times doesn't mention Banerjee, the Times of India article is one penned by him, as is the Wall Street Journal article. There are no reliable sources with depth-of-coverage about the subject. Original author of this article has been blocked for Checkuser-confirmed sockpuppetry. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there's reliable independent sourcing in there somewhere, someone needs to point it out. Fawning and promotional. EEng 15:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that the current state of the article is very poor. Rahul Banerjee was apparently a founder of the Adivasi Morcha Sangathan[14], which appears to be a significant organisation.[15][16]. He was arrested and jailed in 2001, allegedly for "criminal conspiracy", following a fatal clash between Adivasis and the police in Dewas related to AMS.[17][18][19]. He is also a leader of KMCS (Khedut Mazdoor Chetana Sangath), another NGO, and has been quoted in the press on various social issues in Madhya Pradesh.[20][21][22]. His novel theories of "Survival Edge Technology" and "anarcho-environmentalism" haven't received any external coverage so far as I can see. I was unable to verify that he (or his wife) had ever received a MacArthur Fellowship[23], and his citation metrics are quite low[24]. Cheers, gnu57 18:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. He may have a weak claim to meeting NPROF, but it's not clear-cut enough for me; and I don't see him meeting GNG. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:41, 16 November 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) 08:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Kahafizadeh[edit]

Lina Kahafizadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, although it's tough to find sources I understand. Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with the nom, the article only appears to mention a single event, for which there's only one source available. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラP 04:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No major coverage in independent, reliable sources. IvoryTower123 (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough reliable coverage. Barca (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom's reasoning. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:23, 12 November 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 sole keep argument is not grounded in applicable policies and guidelines. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ThreeChess[edit]

ThreeChess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article seems to be a promotion for the products of threechess.com, as opposed to the other articles we have on actual 3-player chess variants. Dicklyon (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – When ThreeChess page was created there were not any products on the website and the idea was to create unified rules for playing three player chess as there were none until the creation of ThreeChess, which was the first three player chess online. 10 years after there are still players that are interested in the game and playing online for free, so this page is not a promotional page, but a clear description of a three player chess variant. It has been discussed a lot and also there are discussions and a lot of edits on the wiki page, so in my opinion the page should not be deleted and it is notable for Wikipadia. Rrachkov (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2019 (EET)
Note that Rrachkov is a WP:SPA for ThreeChess. Dicklyon (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per concerns brought up by the nominator - this article is just on a single variant of chess created by a company to promote their website. It also seems to have been created by a WP:SPA whose only edits to Wikipedia were to create this page, and then promote it on various other pages. I am unable to find any reliable sources discussing this particular website, as well. All of the actual reliable sources being used in the article are actually referring to Three-player chess, not this specific website's variant of it. If it is deleted, its entry should also be removed from the Three-player chess article as well, for similar reasons of non-notability and promotion. Rorshacma (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability; per Roschama, RS coverage is connected to Three-player chess, not this subtopic. Any non-promotional content can be covered in Three-player chess. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anyone access the Time magazine article referenced in the article? [25] Its from Monday, Jan. 08, 1973. So how much coverage was there back then which we can access now through internet searches? Did any Chess magazines mentioned it? This can be redirected to Three-player chess. Dream Focus 00:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that, since the website that this article is about wasn't launched until 2010, a Times article from 1973 would likely not be talking about it. As was discussed before, this article tries to make itself seem legitimate by adding in sources about the history of an actual notable topic, Three-player chess, when the actual topic of the article is a very specific website that is being promoted where you can play it online. Rorshacma (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on what others have said, this seems to just be promotion for something that has no coverage anywhere for itself. Dream Focus 16:38, 11 November 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 Rename to Chess King (disambiguation). Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

King of Chess[edit]

King of Chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no actual topic called "King of Chess", so we don't have any plausible use for this disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Chess King (disambiguation)). While the current title is a bit odd, and doesn't match several of the entries, renaming it as suggested by Zanhe would make this a valid disambiguation page. Rorshacma (talk) 16:57, 7 November 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. It is well established that SNGs are subordinate to the GNG. An article that meets an SNG (which this one might, though GPL93's point is a salient one) might be given a little bit of extra leeway if its compliance with GNG is a close call, the subject of this article is a living person, and COATRACK concerns are live ones. Additionally, the keep !votes here rely almost entirely on the SNGs, with nothing to establish that it's even close to compliance with the GNG. Steve Smith (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin G. Ross[edit]

Kevin G. Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article as it stands is something of a COATRACK and fails NPOV, especially since the "Marriage and Divorce" section is sourced entirely from primary sources. (There was previously a negative section entitled "Judicial tenure" that was sourced entirely from a Google search.) While enough of the negative stuff has been removed to "save" this from G10, a Google search shows no evidence of passing the GNG; the results are mainly primary sources, and after half a page it starts showing results from a different Kevin Ross, who's a judge from Delaware. Given this and the present BLP concerns I don't think this topic is worthy of a Wikipedia article at this time. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@John M Wolfson:
This is all verifiable and true. This is all public. His divorce opinion is public. This article cannot be deleted and is well sourced. It is not overwhelmingly negative. This is what the opinion said. It's totally neutral. It is utterly ridiculous for you to attempt to delete a page of a public official. Are you working with him or are you his friend?
https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/court-of-appeals/2014/a13-611.html
Wikiposteryolo (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiposteryolo, that material is true or even verifiable does not guarantee inclusion into Wikipedia. NPOV is about selective emphasis of facts to distort the big picture just as much as, if not more than, the facts themselves and their sourcing; Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Also, a generic Google search (reference #4), without even mentioning the specific entry, does not good sourcing make, nor does the court case as it's a primary source. The fact that Ross is a living person makes these issues much more acute for Wikipedia's purposes. Merely being a public official does not qualify a person for a Wikipedia article, and even without the NPOV issues I fail to see evidence that Ross does pass that bar (no pun intended). It also doesn't help your case to insinuate without evidence that I am somehow connected with the subject of the article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Totally false. The marriage and divorce section was sourced entirely from a Minnesota Court of Appeals opinion and is properly cited. This past comment did not even bother to go look at the opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiposteryolo (talk • contribs) 17:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiposteryolo, there's no need to look at the opinion for this purpose as it is a primary source. A Wikipedia article, especially a biography on a living person, should not be sourced entirely or even mostly on primary sources, as they are easily interpreted according to the editor's viewpoint, contrary to Wikipedia policy. For that very reason, the court opinion does not establish notability and allow this article to be kept. Also, please do not put further comments on the top of the page, as that confuses people and interrupts the flow of the conversation. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiposteryolo you have asserted in your recent edits (now reverted) that the judge's appeal of the trial court decree to the court of appeals "is a serious conflict of interest". You are wrong. First, that is your uninformed opinion and prohibited original research. Second, even judges are allowed to be parties in court actions; even judges are entitled to equal treatment under the law, which includes the rights of appeal. Third, the court which decided the case comprised retired judges and not his colleagues on the court. And fourth, they found against him.
All of which raises the question: What is your personal vendetta against the judges who are the subject of your articles and edits? Whatever they are, they don't belong on Wikipedia. Kablammo (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wow, I thought you were exaggerating with the Google search but holy cow it really was sourced with a Google search. Yep, definitely delete this. This is the kind of article that gives Wikipedia a bad name and the sooner it's gone, the better. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned up the remaining calumny, so the article should be judged as it now reads. The position he holds is on a court with statewide jurisdiction, but intermediate between the trial courts and the supreme court. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_courts_and_judges/Notability#Judges_of_state_courts_of_appeals. I take no position. Kablammo (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC) I have now voted to delete, based on the discussion here. Kablammo (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reference Kablammo. Here's a bit that seems to line up with your link: Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability. In particular, state courts of appeals judges who serve for a comparatively long time, who preside over important cases, or whose opinions are often cited by higher courts in the state, by federal courts, or by state courts in other states, are highly likely to be notable. If there are other articles about this judge. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep State appellate court judges are considered notable-thank you-RFD (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. As 38.142.216.106 quoted above, such judges are not inherently notable (and the SNGs don't trump the GNG in any event), although it does leave some leeway for external evidence of notability. However, I don't see such evidence.
The Minnesota courts website is good in establishing verification of facts, but I don't believe it establishes notability in isolation, as several other judges in the system of lesser notability are included.
Ballotpedia is likewise not a source that establishes notability in isolation, although per the lack of consensus that surrounds its use on Wikipedia as a reliable source it perhaps can be used for verification.
Of the other two sources returned by a Google Search on my end, one is a Bloomberg piece that's just stats and the other is his divorce opinion, which is a primary source.
All in all, I feel that this is a borderline case; were this not a BLP I'd default to keep, but as Ross is a living person I feel that we should play it safe and default to delete. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. I don't think that the article was created in bad faith, but it seems like the only reason it was created was to include the BLP violation material that was removed previously. Beyond that, there's essentially no third party coverage that meets the requirements of WP:GNG, just generic information confirming that he exists and is a judge. It's not that state appellate judges are inherently non-notable, but there's no actual information about him other than basic directory information. We don't even really have a bio -- when was he born? 38.142.216.106 (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are no substantial sources that show notability. On this level of sourcing we would make every judge who holds an elective judgeship notable, and that is clearly not the intent of any of our guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily; trial court judges are elected locally (within their respective districts) and few would contend that they are automatically notable. Appellate court judges are elected statewide. But given the inability of WP to adequately maintain BLPs I have not voted "Keep" here. Kablammo (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:BARE. He's an appellate judge, but I don't see any of the usual indications of notability as a lawyer. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I too subscribe to WP:IFINDOUBTCREATE, but I believe that BLPs should default to delete. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. State appellate court judges are considered notable. @John M Wolfson: Your analysis of SNG not trumping GNG is incorrect. Here is a relevant Quote: this comment from Dodger67 about subject-specific notability guidelines: an SNG can never be used to exclude a subject that meets GNG. An SNG is by definition meant to (temporarily) lower the bar for subjects for which proving GNG compliance is difficult. In other words, SNGs do trump GNG because SNGS are about lowering the standard of inclusion in certain cases.4meter4 (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's only in cases where the subject already meets the GNG, which is debatable in this case. See also this comment from SpinningSpark, which says that The principle that SNGs do not trump GNG, that is, that they only indicate that the subject may be notable, is a principle that has wide consensus amongst editors (but still argued about enough not to have been explicitly written into guidelines). (emphasis mine). SNGs are not a "get-out-of-jail free card" for non-notable topics, and this borderline case is made more fraught by the fact that Ross is a living person. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft Delete. I was actually leaning towards deletion under the notability guidelines of WP:USCJ, but I did find a newspaper article referencing a "Kevin G. Ross" who was an Iowa police officer in 1988 (which this Kevin G. Ross was) who was an alternate delegate to the 1988 Republican National Convention (the article is Stacy Swadish, "Two head for GOP convention", Iowa City Press-Citizen (August 13, 1988), p. 1B). The article goes into enough depth to indicate that Ross was a Democrat up until the Carter administration, thereafter became a Republican, and supported Pat Robertson in the primaries. If this is the same Kevin G. Ross, I would send to draft for further development, as it seems unlikely that this person was appointed to the court of appeals in a biographical vacuum. bd2412 T 04:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's true, that would make me reconsider my position. However, the Political Graveyard here notes only the "Kevin Ross" in the 1988 Convention without any mention of a judicial (or any other) career; as other entries do include judgeships where appropriate, this might be absence of evidence being evidence of absence. I would support a move to draftspace iff the link between 1988 GOP Ross and this Ross is more firmly supported. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This Minnesota courts biography indicates that he's African-American, in agreement with the Political Graveyard entry of the 1988 Convention Ross, in addition to the other biographical details mentioned earlier. However, it doesn't say anything about the Convention itself (not that I'd expect it to); and neither do any of the sources provided by a Google Search. I now believe that it is the same person, in which case draftspace might be appropriate, but the evidence hitherto collected is somewhat circumstantial and SYNTHy to the point where I still feel keeping this in the mainspace is inappropriate. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is the same Kevin G. Ross. He was an Iowa police officer before begging politicians for a seat on the bench in Hennepin County. He treats litigants like trash and is a prosecutor through and through. He also mentioned during that shooting of Philando Castille appeal that the officer had probable cause to shoot him because he smelled "marijuana" smoke. @JonMWOlfson what's your issue with verified facts? His marriage is public. All appellate records are public. It must be inserted into his article. He appealed the case to his own court to get favorable treatment. That's a matter of public concern and is therefore a product for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiposteryolo (talk • contribs) 02:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, now I get the feeling that you're not here in the best faith, or if you are that you severely misunderstand several of Wikipedia's policies. It doesn't matter that these facts are independently true, or even verifiable, for Wikipedia's purposes. They need to be brought into a bigger picture in accordance with our policy on having a neutral point of view. In particular, Wikipedia is not for advocacy of a certain position or righting great wrongs. Even if there really isn't much nice to say about Ross, such fact(s) need to be thoroughly discussed in multiple reliable secondary sources, and what paltry sources exist don't cut it, especially as this is a biography of a living person. In the future, please make sure you really and thoroughly understand these rules and guidelines before making another article, especially one on a living person. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am leaning more towards deletion if the relatively thin case for notability here is going to be offset by the time drain of a low-level article drawing constant attacks and efforts to insert POV. bd2412 T 04:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Under existing policy, Judge Ross is not automatically notable because of his position. And his marriage dissolution and (likely) service as an alternate to a national political convention are insufficient to confer notability. And we should not rely his biography on the court's website— those are self-authored. Kablammo (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appellate judge that meets the notability guidelines of WP. WP:NOTPAPER. We have reliable sources. Easy keep. WP:PRESERVE. Wm335td (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to badger, but might I ask what sources are those? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ross is a state appellate judge, but for a specific district (Minnesota's 3rd congressional district), so his position is not actually statewide. I don't see notability conferred by the current sources. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Borderline case that has gone from NC to a lean towards Delete since last relist; one last relist to see whether Delete is confirmed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed my position above from "move to draft" to "delete". bd2412 T 18:13, 11 November 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) 08:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paths of the Dead[edit]

Paths of the Dead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication this obscure Tolkien trivia goes beyond WP:PLOT and passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Quite a few of Tolkien fiction plot devices are notable; he has been studied and written about a lot. But not this one. Still, it's Tolkien, so let's skip PROD and discuss it here. Maybe someone can prove me wrong? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Redirect probably does not make sense as it would be an unlikely search term. Tone 11:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Underworld (Dreamlands)[edit]

Underworld (Dreamlands) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication this WP:PLOT element passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. But it's Lovercraft, so let's discuss it here, maybe someone can find a source or two that are not primary/in passing. Or suggest a good merge target, at least - but to merge, better refs would be needed too... so far this is all pure PLOT. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Dream Cycle as not individually notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath- This is just very specific details of the plot of a single story, The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath, which there is already an article of with a very extensive plot summary. There really isn't a reason to have an article split off from that, going into this much detail of the more minor bits of the plot, sourced only to the story itself. I have also found no sources that would really justify these locations being independently notable enough to need to have an article separate from the story's article. A redirect to the story's article would be sufficient, though as I am not sure how plausible this is as a search term, I am also fine with straight deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 06:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect to The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath. Goustien (talk) 05:44, 13 November 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 List of encyclopedias by language#Polish. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Encyklopedia Polski[edit]

Encyklopedia Polski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(So we don't have a deletion sort listing for books...?). Anyway, this seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (books) and WP:GNG in general. No awards, no reviews. It exists - that's it. No article on pl Wikipedia as an extra red flag. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if there is no coverage then we have to delete - but were there really no reviews of such a major undertaking? Are Polish newspapers from 1996 available somewhere in a digitized form to look for reviews in? Haukur (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I Already added some more comprehensive details and not just a two volume encyclopedia Telex80 (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In such, that notability of the article weren't applied on true impact, So I will said to Keep that article. Telex80 (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What impact? The point is this work has none. It exists, might have been even used as a supplementary materials in some school courses... that doesn't mean it passes WP:GNG/Wikipedia:Notability (books). Feel free to counter me by listing criteria from those policies that this work meets. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to be a notable topic. EvilxFish (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. I found two peer reviewed journal articles that include the work as a citation and a few doctoral theses as well. Not sure if being utilized in academic research lends to notability though. Thoughts?4meter4 (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The Keeps are not yet providing any RS - perhaps 4meter4 has something?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. I have nothing to add then what I already stated. It's a source used as a reference in published academic papers, but not any independent coverage. This needs a polish fluent editor with access to polish language references. That's where any RS, if it exists, will be found. I can confidently state there is nothing in the English language. I just left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland for help from Polish speaking wikipedians. Maybe relist one more time to see if anything crops up. If not, deletion is probably the best option. 4meter4 (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Wikipedia has a number of Polish encyclopedias (see the category "Polish encyclopedias"), but there is no "List of Polish encyclopedias where this could be mentioned? Coolabahapple (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @4meter4 and Coolabahapple: I am Polish :) And I found nothing. That said, Polish sources, such as book reviews etc. are not indexed very well in Google Scholar or such, so there might be some offline or poorly indexed sources I just didn't see. But we can't keep something on the hope that there may be something. So far no indication has been found that it meets notability guidelines mentioned in the lead: no reviews, no awards. At best one could soft delete, redirect and merge it to List_of_encyclopedias_by_language#Polish or such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_encyclopedias_by_language#Polish per Piotrus' very reasonable solution.4meter4 (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_encyclopedias_by_language#Polish, agree with above. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_encyclopedias_by_language#Polish. Came from posting at [26] WikiProject. I can't find all that much written on the encyclopedia as a topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MozeTak (talk • contribs) 05:37, 15 November 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. Tone 11:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Satriale's Pork Store[edit]

Satriale's Pork Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don' think this passes WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. There is one piece in regional portal about it being a show-related tourist attraction ([27]) and another about it being demolished. Niether of them is very good quality or in-depth, at best we have 2-3 so-so sources covering this in few paragraphs. It is better than some other similar cases, so I am skipping prod, this needs a proper AfD discussion. Is this salvageable? If there was a List of The Sopranos locations, we could merge it there, but I don't think there is one... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Appears to meet GNG refs; a Wikipedia:BEFORE leads to NT Times, The Record, The Star-Ledger, Reuters, etc.Djflem (talk) 09:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It appears to meet notability criteria, having a significant mention in reliable sources, as seen in the page's references section. No opposition to a redirect if a list page of locations is ever made.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to List of The Sopranos locations along with Bada Bing, and the only other significant locations I can think of would be Nuovo Vesuvio and the Soprano home. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to List of The Sopranos locations; passes GNG.Djflem (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The scope and breadth of the sources identified about the topic, including those already in the article, demonstrates that the notability standard has been met. Alansohn (talk) 12:38, 8 November 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. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rehmat Ajmal[edit]

Rehmat Ajmal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMODEL. Concerns with WP:GNG - the sources provided do not cover the subject significantly. After a WP:BEFORE, I found sources, but they weren't WP:RS. Thanks. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:04, 7 November 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. czar 02:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mellody Farm[edit]

Mellody Farm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small strip shopping centers with a handful of medium-size "anchors" and other small stores. Very much WP:MILL, like thousands of other retail centers. Sources are routine coverage in local news. Does not meet WP:GNG. Already CSDed once but that was declined, so starting this discussion. MB 01:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC) MB 01:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. MB 01:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MB 01:47, 7 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aeneas Internet and Telephone[edit]

Aeneas Internet and Telephone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable -BigDwiki talk 00:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -BigDwiki talk 00:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was actually leaning towards delete based on the low GNews hits, all of which were incidental drive-by mentions in local press, but the GBooks hits shows that the company's recovery after the 2003 tornado was actually a very notable instance in the field of business continuity planning (See: 1 2 3 4 5 6). The Computer World article clears it over any WP:AUD concerns, this is not a BLP article so WP:1E doesn't apply, as such my conclusion is keep per WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Dragon Gate USA. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DGUSA Uprising[edit]

DGUSA Uprising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This event (or the two others of the same name held in 2011 and 2012) seems to lack the required notability for an article. It happened and is listed on fansites and databases, but looking for better searches (both with DGUSA Uprising and "Dragon Gate" Uprising as search terms) failed to produce anything. Fram (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JournalServer[edit]

JournalServer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unsuccessful project. Not obviously notable and lacking references. Rathfelder (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Even though the project was short lived, it was notable. See 1, 2, and other brief mentions I can see. It was an early collaborative project in open publishing, so significant. Mccapra (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Mccapra's ref. no. 2 appears solid, but ref. no. 1 appears to be a report issued by Open Journal about themselves. It is not clear to me that this is about JournalServer or independent of the subject if it is - it does not mention the term "JournalServer" but instead merely talks about publishing a couple of journals using "jouranl server". Even if it is independent of the subject, it is not WP:SIGCOV as it is a bare mention. In my WP:BEFORE I couldn't find any other instances of WP:SIGCOV and as such this fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FOARP. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Further, what is the value of an article on a now defunct short lived website that carried academic journals that are still available in other formats? It's doubtful this information will be of any value to the reading public because the content housed at this website is now housed elsewhere. For example, the Wiley Online Library Database Model 2018 houses the Journal of the Chinese Chemical Society and the Indian Journal of Tuberculosis is housed at the DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals. Anybody looking for the content once at this website can find it elsewhere in a search at their local library very easily. There is really nothing notable about a short-lived academic website warehouse with minimal content which has been moved elsewhere to larger hosts of academic journals.4meter4 (talk) 17:10, 14 November 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. Tone 11:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial psychology[edit]

Artificial psychology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TNT: I believe the current contents of the article are entirely original research. It was created in 2008 with no references, by a brand-new user who hasn't made any other substantial contributions. The article attributed the theory to a "Dan Curtis (b. 1963-)"; I have been unable to find any direct record of Mr. Curtis's work on the topic. Instead, there are a number of post-2008 sources which vaguely attribute the idea to Curtis, with some calling 1963 his year of birth, others the year in which he coined the term. For instance, [28][29][30]: these all seem to me instances of citogenesis/cribbing from Wikipedia.

Separately, a number of Chinese researchers have published work on an "artificial psychology" concept (e.g., [31][32][33]): This is distinct from the Curtis idea in that it involves using computers to model or analyze human psychology, rather than using psychological techniques to "reason" with an artificial intelligence. I am unable to determine whether the Chinese concept would merit a stand-alone article. Cheers, gnu57 15:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. gnu57 15:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. gnu57 15:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. gnu57 15:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Whereas the proposal is correct in that as it stands this article is rather poor however there are appropriate secondary sources that discuss this topic, suggesting the article is salvageable. EvilxFish (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that other sources have discussed concepts called "artificial psychology" (which appear to me to overlap in scope with cognitive engineering); but I believe the particular contents of this article to be entirely made-up. Cheers, gnu57 01:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source appears reliable to me. I do recognise the concerns about citogenesis/circular referencing, but the source is peer-reviewed, which to me is a significant mitigating factor. If the original Wikipedia article was just made up, then the peers who were doing the reviewing would have caught that. I would tend to believe that instead, the original author was a subject-matter expert or knowledgeable student who had access to material that isn't free online.—S Marshall T/C 10:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Article could use some work but it is fine to build upon. DeloreanTimeMachine (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep But it needs many changes. I generally agree with the nom and think the first place this was published was here. That is why we need to correct it here. If we delete the article someone will add those refs based on (probable) cytogenesis. I'm not trusting any post-2008 source. I would change it back to "Dan Curtis (b. 1963-)". Was that more common for people without articles in 2008? Could make 3-4 sections for usage over time.Ngram chart Maybe pre-computer, early computer, Chinese researchers, Curtis section. This book from 1974 might be good for early computer Homo Cyberneticus: Artificial psychology and generative micro-sociology. StrayBolt (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stagecoach Gold bus route S3[edit]

Stagecoach Gold bus route S3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Route not notable enough to warrant it's own article Commyguy (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per The Mirror Cracked.4meter4 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 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. Tone 11:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stagecoach Gold bus route S2[edit]

Stagecoach Gold bus route S2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Route not notable enough to warrant it's own article Commyguy (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is independent coverage of the route in The Oxford Mail and The Bicester Advertiser, as well as the Oxford Mail article already cited. Together these demonstrate the articles meets the general notability guidelines. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing out of the ordinary other than a run of the mill bus route with local coverage only. Ajf773 (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ajf773, Isn't run of the mill coverage context-specific? That is, there's a higher "bar" or threshold to pass for certain types of articles? I would think, for companies, the threshold is the highest and these articles wouldn't pass WP:SIGCOV. However, for a bus route, I'd give them a pass as significant coverage, no? Doug Mehus T·C 01:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't do subpages for articles. Ajf773 (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ajf773, Oh right, yeah, I saw that afterward because I looked it up. Too bad. It'd be nice, I think. Doug Mehus T·C 20:24, 13 November 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. czar 02:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ashraf (chess player)[edit]

Mohammad Ashraf (chess player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable chess player, he doesn't even hold a FIDE title! References are tournaments results and databases. Sophia91 (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sophia91 (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NCHESS, no significant independent coverage.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There's considerable debate about the sourcing for the article and whether there's enough to justify compliance with GNG. I think the arguments for Delete have the better case and policy backing, but I don't read the discussion as holding consensus for that position (it's very much split). For that reason, I'm closing as "no consensus." Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto Alciati[edit]

Ernesto Alciati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person is a non-notable athlete Finball30 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Finball30 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Finball30 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Competed at the Olympics, per WP:NOLY. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I despair of Wikipedia sometimes. Because of one SNG we've actually got to keep this article about a bloke who's notable for not finishing a marathon at the 1924 Olympics?—S Marshall T/C 10:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because he was at the Olympics at all, his name exists in Olympic-related references and will be seen there by people who will be looking for information about him. The fact that he didn't finish the race is not a reason why he's less notable than the other people he was running next to; the fact that he was in the race at all is absolutely a valid notability claim. It's the frickin' Olympics: win or lose, getting there at all is a highly notable achievement by definition. So even if we deemed him not notable enough for a standalone biography, we would still have to keep his name as a redirect to some other article that explained why he was the one and only athlete in the entire history of the Olympics who was somehow less notable than all the others. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I right in thinking, from that response, that you feel our decisions about notability need to be consistent with each other?—S Marshall T/C 15:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you mean "consistency" in the sense that "if we decide that every Olympic athlete is notable for being there, that means we also have to decide that every writer who ever published a book has to have an article regardless of their sourceability or lack thereof", then no, you're not. Different fields of human endeavour have different considerations — some occupations are much more prone to trying to misuse Wikipedia as a publicity platform for their own self-published public relations bumf than others are, for example, so some occupations have to have stricter notability standards than others do (although there's no human occupation for which we have no quantified notability standards.) Being an athlete is the occupation while getting to the Olympics is a career achievement that not every athlete ever accomplishes at all, so this isn't even as unparallel to other notability standards as you seem to think it is. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that there are more notable sportspeople than there are notable scientists strikes you as an inherent flaw in our notability standards, and not simply a factor of either (a) the number of sportspeople there are in the world compared to the number of scientists, or (b) the amount of attention that notability-making reliable sources devote to them for us to write articles with? Fascinating. Simple reality check: Olympic athletes always have real sources, whereas scientists may or may not. Neither group is getting special treatment; both groups are simply following the sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. I understand how it works. I just think it shouldn't work like that. A disparity of that magnitude is wrong, and it's a failing of Wikipedia. We need to apply a bit more editorial judgment in the edge cases like this one, in order to go some way towards leavening the loaf.—S Marshall T/C 18:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're all volunteers here, and we work in areas that interest us. 5,400+ footballers vs. <100 scientists is for people interested in scientists to work on. The Italian WP category has 277 scientists, and that's before you look at the sub-cats. Serie A football has twenty teams (according to our own article). So from match one, there are 220 notable footballers (20 x 11). Maybe there simply is never going to be 5,400 Italian scientists. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe there aren't enough articles about scientists, then by all means you're free to do something about it — but the appropriate thing to do is to take on a project of finding and identifying and writing about more Italian scientists who meet our notability standards for scientists and just don't have articles yet, not to tear down sportspeople who meet the notability criteria for sportspeople just because we don't have enough scientists. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: He's not. Of the 75 competitors listed in Athletics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon (all of them have surnames), five only have initials for a forename, and one of them (Vincent) only has a surname. Now is that "less notable than all the others" or what? ミラP 02:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to applicable Olympic games article which mentions this athlete per JzG below, subject to further reply significant counter-arguments from Bearcat et al. (ping me!), was Keep, possibly speedy per Bearcat's rationale above. I don't know the rules on the Olympics, but to me, one doesn't need to finish a competition. They could be signed up to participate on the Olympic team and then back out at the opening ceremonies and still be notable. Also, +1 to Bearcat for his reply to S Marshall that different fields of human endeavour (i.e., writing) merit different notability tests. I couldn't have said it better myself; or,
Delete per S Marshall and JzG below. If this alternate !vote helps to establish consensus and prevent a no consensus outcome, then I'm fine with this outcome as an alternate outcome.
Doug Mehus (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. SNGs are there to indicate the type of person likely to have enough sources to allow a biography, they are not there to override core policy. There are no substantive sources about this person. We cannot have articles based on namechecks in results lists. Guy (help!) 13:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, Interesting. Are you saying, essentially, that because there are no sources which meet WP:GNG/WP:NBIO, the supplementary notability guideline at WP:NOLY doesn't apply? Tagging Bearcat to see your response and consider a reply. Either of you can ping me and I'll consider changing my !vote based on further responses.--Doug Mehus (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus, Yes. WP:GNG describes the sourcing needed to meet canonical policy (WP:V, WP:NOT etc). It has wide consensus. Subject specific guidelines are almost all drawn up by small groups of fans of a subject with no non-fan input, they offer a handy guide for consistency and generally indicate the kind of person likely to meet GNG, but if there are no sources about the subject then we should not have an article. Wikipedia is not a directory of Olympians or anything else. There's no reason you can't have a list article with redirects, when you have results but no biographical sources. Guy (help!) 16:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While this technically meets WP:NOLYMPICS, in that he took part in 1924, there is nowhere near enough for WP:GNG. The little narrative there is in the article has been derived from statistical records and I don't think that is sufficient for an article. My take on the argument above is that the SNG provides an indication of potential notability which must then be determined by reference to the GNG. Achieving SNG by means of a statistical mention is not a qualifier for GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because DNF is a participation. --Kasper2006 (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only sources are trivial mentions. Meeting a SNG is an indication of notability, not iron-clad proof of notability. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOLYMPICS doesn't exist because someone decided out of nowhere that all Olympians are notable or to override general notability guidelines. With arguably the exception of the earliest editions, but certainly by 1924, people who attended the Olympics were not just picked out of a hat, they were elite athletes at the national level. In 2019 in English, yes, the only thing that is readily available is that he failed to finish the marathon at the Games, but the fact that he was there in the first place suggests that he had at least some success in his home country, which is probably difficult to find information about unless you have access to Italian publications from the 1920s. WP:NOLYMPICS exists, therefore, because consensus determined that if the individual was at the Games, there is a significant likelihood that sufficient sources for a biography exist that may just be difficult to access. My work is on pre-1952 Egyptian athletes, and information beyond their Olympic appearance is difficult to find in Arabic online, let alone in English. But I happen to have access to newspapers and sports journals from that era and there is plenty of coverage on all of them that would satisfy WP:N with ease. For a country like Italy, which at the time had a better-developed press and sporting infrastructure, there must exist coverage of all of their Olympians that would easily satisfy WP:N, I just can't access it (or at least read it). WP:NOLYMPICS represents that consensus that these sources likely exist for all Olympians, even if we cannot find them, and so we can avoid discussions such as this and presume notability unless there is convincing evidence otherwise. Canadian Paul 17:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The notion that everyone who has participated at any olympics from 1896 to the present is default notable is just ludicrous. Sourcing is not there to create even semi useful articles on over half of the people who ever participated in the olympics. We need to use better criteria and destroy or revamp the olympics notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Athletics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon at the suggestion of both Doug Mehus. While the subject meets WP:NOLY, so do a dozen people who don't get articles because the fact that they only have a initial for a forename (e.g. W. F. Theunissen, A. B. Mole) or no forename at all (Vincent) makes it clear that there are not gonna be any biographical info other than participation anytime soon. Perhaps we should make centralized athlete lists like in early modern English cricket, where the scorecards are incomplete to a point where we have people like J. Cox, S. Maynard, Venner, two people named Walker, Morgan, H. C. Howard, Ashurst - oh, I could go on forever. Heck, we even have a Wikipedia:Featured list on the subject. It is extremely important to note that if it's voted to redirect the article, this could have a huge effect on Wikipedia's coverage on Olympic athletes. ミラP 02:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ミラP 02:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable per WP:NOLYMPICS. That's policy with backing consensus. All other opinions are WP:IDONTLIKEIT viewpoints contrary to policy. If you don't like that particular SNG too bad. We follow written policy. Contrary to the deletionists in this discussion, SNGs exist to temporarily lower the threshold of inclusion in specific content areas where proving GNG compliance is difficult. Otherwise we wouldn't need any guidelines except for GNG. SNGs are just as authoritative as GNG within their particular content area. Stating otherwise is just false. 4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    4meter4, guidelines aren't policies, and if we are going to go that way, the WP:BIO1E exists to counter that. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Some AFD closers do favour SNGs over the GNG, but it's standard operating practice at deletion review to overturn them when that happens.—S Marshall T/C 10:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Athletics at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon per WP:BIO1E. "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person" The subject is notable only for appearing and not finishing a race in Olympics, ergo we cover the event which we already have an article for, instead of a separate article for the person. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jovanmilic97: WP:BIO1E doesn't easily apply to Olympic athletes because in order to qualify they would have had to medal in an important national event (in this case the Italian National Championships Marathon). Even if the article doesn't reflect that content currently, we can presume the athlete would have succeeded in other important races within his own country.4meter4 (talk) 10:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4 WP:NRV says that we "that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability" which we don't have for anything apart of his Olympics appearance so it has to fall under WP:BIO1E and "no subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists" and also see WP:MUSTBESOURCES which is an argument not to make in this AfD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stop WP:wikilawyering Jovanmilic97 and use common sense. We have WP:NOLYMPICS for a reasons just like this. The Olympics has very specific and stringent qualifying rules which govern participation, one of which is placement in the highest national event within the sport. We can trust that any athlete that was accepted passed that criteria. Therefore WP:BIO1E can never apply to Olympic athletes.4meter4 (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would point Wikipedia:Wikilawyering to you as well for using WP:NOLYMPICS and I can also turn WP:COMMONSENSE back to you for WP:BIO1E. I am sad to see you attacking me (and I see other editors above for being deletionists with no proof) when you have no additional arguments, especially since I respected your editing/AfD participation. I'm also not going to reply further since your post above was an enough indicator that we won't get to an agreement, and I'm not going to be involved in a petty reply drama here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I have a pet peeve with editors who ignore SNGs. They are there for a reason. SNGs were written for cases just like this one. It does seem incredibly disrespectful to the community that took the time to carefully put these SNGs together. SNGs were made to temporarily lower the bar for inclusion when GNG compliance proves difficult. If we are going to insist on WP:SIGCOV in every case, then we might as well delete all SNGs as completely irrelevant. This will be my last comment on the matter. Appologies if I upset you.4meter4 (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid that's not how it works. SNGs don't trump the GNG. Some AfD closers do make mistakes about that and we routinely overturn them at deletion review.—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think SNG trumps GNG, they are an indication that GNG likely exists. Do you believe we have exhausted our search for pre-internet Italian sources, the most likely place this would be covered? Canadian Paul gets to the essence of why SNGs are important. For those who want to delete by redirect, what are you going to do with the non-olympic information per WP:PRESERVE? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 12:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What info to be preserved? His birth info and athletic club (the 2nd one being completely trivial)? In any case we already WP:PRESERVE by doing a redirect while keeping the history intact. The target article could be expanded with more info about the competitors too. WP:IMPERFECT applies.Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't see anything encyclopaedic enough to qualify for preserve either. But I'm not sure expanding the redirect target with the dates of birth and athletic clubs of the participants is necessarily very helpful for our readers. If these editors need more time to exhaust their search for pre-internet foreign-language sources, then I have no objection to moving this content to draft space while they work?—S Marshall T/C 13:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • S Marshall, well, and concisely, said: SNGs do not trump the GNG. It's good to hear that this is (one of) the purpose(s) of deletion review. Doug Mehus T·C 14:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:NOLYMPICS. Agathoclea (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have the time to research this individual, but it's worth noting that the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (sports), of which WP:NOLYMPICS is a section, specifically says "All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." (Emphasis mine). This SNG is not a substitute for GNG. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Vanamonde93, Yep. Good emphasis. SNG becomes moot and there's no indication WP:GNG is met here. Sadly, seems like a clear cut case of delete. Doug Mehus T·C 21:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dmehus: SNG becomes moot because... why? How are you so certain that there aren't Italian sources from the 1920s? How are you certain GNG is not met? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    78.26, We have to prove offline sources exist, per Bearcat at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Stuart. Thus, I believe that, until WP:GNG is proven to have been met, deleting without prejudice to re-creation, ideally through AfC seems reasonable. Doug Mehus T·C 22:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have all the respect in the world for Bearcat, and while we often have different perspectives I don't disagree with what he wrote there. However, this article is not based on primary sources, and an Olympic athlete is not in the same league as a local politician. I believe that it is cases like this that make SNGs necessary. I believe that those who want this deleted should show one of two things, either 1)that it is highly unlikely that any reliable, independent sources exist for an Olympic athlete, from a foreign country, from 70+ years before the internet, 2)or alternatively, that community-supported/vetted guidelines such as WP:OLYMPIC are never valid and should be overturned. Re: to S Marshall, I think the most important aspect to preserve is his best time for a marathon, outside the Olympic events. All things considered, I think the pie-in-the-sky option would be to place the information in a "list of 1924 Olympic Marathon Participants". The verifiable information at hand would easily fit into a table. But as this doesn't exist, I believe the best option for readers seeking to find deep information about a premier event from nearly 100 years ago is to keep this article. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:NOLYMPICS. This is an athlete from a non-english speaking country who participated in the Olympics 95 years ago so doing WP:BEFORE on Google is probably not going give many results. As he passes WP:NOLYMPICS, one can assume that he passes WP:GNG until a thorough search in Italian newspaper from that era proves otherwise. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Dammit steve, Disagree that he meets WP:GNG by assumption. Nothing wrong with deleting and letting someone try again, preferably someone in Italy with access to local sources. Doug Mehus T·C 20:14, 18 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_November_7&oldid=1142613125"