User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 16:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Relists	Score
University of Oregon rowing team	6 years ago	1	5481	0	2856.43
List of fictional military aircraft	6 years ago	4	6440	0	2772.05
Presenter	6 years ago	3	7742	1	446.2
Daily News (Karachi)	6 years ago	1	3054	2	420.15
St Philip's Church (Hyderabad)	6 years ago	0	1635	0	403.07
Our Lady of Sorrows Church, Kasur	6 years ago	0	1689	0	402.83
Sacred Heart Church, Gojra	6 years ago	0	1657	0	402.73
St Francis Xavier Church, Sargodha	6 years ago	0	1695	0	402.62
St. Henry's Church (Lahore)	6 years ago	0	1659	0	402.47
Sheriar Irani	6 years ago	0	3146	1	402.14
Vidyananda	6 years ago	0	2146	0	398.46
St. Thomas’ Church, Wah Cantt	6 years ago	0	2010	0	387.55
Muhammad Yaseen	6 years ago	1	1958	0	374.16
Claire Boonstra	6 years ago	0	2416	1	369.19
Muhammad Khan (journalist)	6 years ago	1	3822	2	367.03
Sivananda yoga	6 years ago	1	1895	0	362.27
Thomas, Big World! Big Adventures! The Movie	6 years ago	1	3194	1	361.72
Sidekiq	6 years ago	1	3969	0	356.88
Fallon Davis	6 years ago	1	3310	0	355.14
The Official International Queen Fan Club (2nd nomination)	6 years ago	1	3112	1	352.22
International Airport (film)	6 years ago	1	3164	1	351.8
Lee Seung Ri	6 years ago	1	2837	1	351.48
Vitals (website)	6 years ago	1	5298	2	346.79
Jean-François Susbielle	6 years ago	1	2227	0	341.45
Jeffrey Lopez	6 years ago	1	1905	0	340.66

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a potential future renomination. However it does not appear that there is any inclination towards outright deletion. To the extent that there may be some favoring a merge that discussion can occur on the appropriate article talk page(s). Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

University of Oregon rowing team

University of Oregon rowing team (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)

Repeat from the talk page: This article is almost totally plagiarized from this Thesis June 2015 by Trevor Mathwick. The UofO description is ON THIS PAGE. I was going to remove the offending text but that got silly since it would remove 85% of the article. Correcting this is beyond my current set of editing skills.

The user that created the page, interestingly, did so on December 18, 2014 - six months before the date of the publication. So either the document was stolen and posted or the author plagiarized himself before turning in his theisis for his degree?? Additionally...

• 14:55, 19 January 2015 Valfontis (talk | contribs) blocked Roworegon (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (autoblock disabled) ({{uw-softerblock}})
  ---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• DeleteKeep: I have removed the text that violated copyright. The article still needs editing, but at least it is not a blatant violation. Earwig's analysis yields 99.1% confidence of copyvio. (Earwig was running inconsistently, however, and the scholarsbank.uoregon.edu site took too long to respond the first time I ran it.) There does not appear to be any way to salvage this article in its current state, short of contacting the author of the dissertation that is the source for this copyvio to ask for a declaration of public domain or CC-by-SA copyright license. WP:TNT may seem harsh, but WP policy is clear on the subject of copyvio, with good reason. Even though it's a club sport, rowing probably deserves its own article, but one that summarizes and paraphrases reliable sources appropriately. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Earwig still reports 95.6% confidence of copyvio, but the problem text is virtually all properly quoted material from news sources. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Either delete because of copyvio or just STUBIFY. I'm sure the topic is indeed notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: Grand'mere Eugene left a comment at WT:ORE about the old copyvio revisions. I'm happy to delete revisions that introduced copyvio's. On a quick look, it appears to me that the revisions in question were by roworegon in Jan. 2015 Special:Diff/643166539/643188712. Is that accurate? For what it's worth, it's good to catch these things as early as possible, since deleting the revisions now will make for rather confusing diffs going forward. There have been a LOT of edits in the interim. Not the end of the world, but not ideal. Feel free to ping me for this kind of thing in the future. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Actually, I found evidence of copyvio a month earlier, @ this diff. As you point out, there have been many edits by other editors in good faith. What a mess. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: Thanks for all your efforts. I've now suppressed about 75 early revisions, up to the first substantive edits by others. I'm happy to continue, but want to proceed with caution in such a complex scenario. Please let me know (anybody) if you have ideas on how to best go about it. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination per se, except for vague, non-policy-based preferences based on being a UO alum myself. @Darryl.P.Pike: For future nominations, please carefully and fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 14:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete- copyvio issues aside, I don't see how this meets WP:ORG. In particular the sourcing fails WP:AUD--Rusf10 (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment - The article now has only local sources, it's true, but there are national and international sources which can be summarized and used to develop the article. The following sources had been plagiarised and had been removed:

• "Girl Coxswain Stirs Controversy" (Page E8). Palm Beach Post-Times. 16 April 1972. Retrieved 4 September 2014.
• "Coed Makes Waves for Crew". The Milwaukee Journal. 18 April 1972. p. 10. Retrieved 4 September 2014.
•  Moore, Kenny (April 1972). "Case of the Ineligible Bachelorette". Sports Illustrated: n.p. Retrieved 4 September 2014.
• Solemn, Karen, ed. (1997). American Rowers Almanac 1997. Ray Richard Solem. p. 246. ISBN 0965132714. OL 11733133M – via American Rowers Almanac, Inc.
• "Wisconsin Women's Rowing: History and Highlights". University of Wisconsin. p. 2. Retrieved 5 September 2014.
• "U.S. Team Boating - Men 1980-1999: 1993 World Championships & 1994 World Championships". Friends of Rowing History. Retrieved 6 September 2014.
• "1994 Results". Head of the Charles. Retrieved 6 September 2014.
• "Gold medals shared at under-23 championships". World Rowing. 17 July 2012. Retrieved 7 September 2014.
• "2011 ACRA Regatta Results". ACRA. 2011. Retrieved 6 September 2014.
• "2012 ACRA Regatta Results". ACRA. 2012. Retrieved 6 September 2014.
• "2013 Results". Head of the Lake. 4 November 2013. Retrieved 6 September 2014.
• "2014 ACRA Regatta Results". ACRA. 2014. Retrieved 6 September 2014.

Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Merge with University of Oregon#Athletics. The team itself isn't notable but there's substantial content on the page which is encyclopedic and useful. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

(Post relist comment to StraussInTheHouse)) - It seems odd for you to say "the team itself isn't notable" while linking to WP:NOPAGE where the first line is "When creating new content about a notable topic". NOPAGE is choosing not to use a separate article, even when there is notability.

I'm inclined to think that the article is notable, and I'm positive that it is a substantive enough topic that it only makes sense to merge it if it would otherwise be a delete. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey Nosebagbear, thanks for your comment. Sorry, I should have made myself clearer, by linking WP:NOPAGE, I wasn't referring just to the first line, I was referring to the overall idea of something being eligible to be mentioned as a subsection of an article but not being notable enough nor having a parent page long enough to warrant a content fork or a standalone page. In other words, the team is notable for inclusion as a section in the University of Oregon's page but it is not notable in that it is merely a part of the University of Oregon and hasn't had enough sustained, independent coverage to warrant a separate article. I hope that makes more sense? Thanks, StraussInTheHouse (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi - I get what you mean, I feel that is more WP:NOTEWORTHY but I see your argument. Not that I agree with it, of course, that would be too easy. I'm inclined to think it does meet article notability requirements, though I'm not yet positive enough of that (since we are now so local, source-wise) to confirm my !vote. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep I see no reason why an article of this size should be merged. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Surprising this is even discussed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The issue that brought this article to AFD was copyvio, which led to deletion of text sourced to national news sources. I added a few details that support notability of the program, and there are still more sources from the copyvio version (see my earlier comment above) that also could be used to develop the article. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if further discussion focused on whether a separate page is warranted, or whether the University athletics page is sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment It isn't a copyvio if the same person initially created the article under an irrevocable free license and later submitted a thesis which included the text of the article. This involves fewer assumptions than the text being stolen or uploaded by a third party. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Seems fine as it is, appears to be have been cleaned, and well-sourced. Hzh (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: (1) I would argue against a merge at this point, because the sources as they stand meet GNG. The team has competed annually at the American Collegiate Rowing Association national championships, and individual athletes have made the ACRA All-American lists. The article is also quite lengthy, and in my opinion has enough encyclopedic detail and national sources to stand on its own. In addition, the University_of_Oregon#Athletics section of the UO article is currently not abour club sports, but only about UO NCAA athletic teams, as is the separate article, Oregon Ducks. (2) Addressing comments by Eastmain: the creator of the article, Roworegon, did not leave any evidence of an irrevocable free license before his account was blocked, and despite my efforts to reach him by e-mail through either "Email this user" or through an e-mail address I found by Googling Trevor Mathwick, I have had no response regarding making such a declaration. There is, however, a declaration on the UO Library archive page that the thesis upon which the original article was based has a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, not acceptable for our purposes. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to List of fictional aircraft mostly as a procedural closure. Even though this AfD wasn't added to the logs until a few days ago, the merge has stood for over a month (AfD tag on the resulting redirect included), so I don't see any point in keeping this discussion open. ansh666 00:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

List of fictional military aircraft

List of fictional military aircraft (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)

Portions of the article lacks notability and is a duplicate of the page - FOX 52 (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Only in the opinion of the nominator does it lack notability. I will see if I can add some sources to it, but if the nominator will continue on removing information so that it will be deleted quicker he got everything wrong. I propose merge at least. I also would like to ping @AHMED XIV:, a person who had some dialogue with this editor in the past to sort out this, unethical, in my opinion nomination.--Biografer (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies with editor who's adding content per WP:PROVEIT - further as stated "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source" per WP:BURDEN The article clean up tag has been there since 2010 - FOX 52 (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was doing before you did another 7 edits after you put that tag. I don't care if the tag is there or not. As I said earlier merge proposition without PROD would have been a better solution, but you just want to start a discussion via this template instead of discussing it on the article talkpage. In fact, nobody had a problem with the article, only you did.--Biografer (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep It's not a duplicate of that page. List of fictional aircraft is all fictional aircraft. This article is an expanded List of fictional military aircraft, this being the main article of the section at List of fictional aircraft. Furthermore, portions being non notable don't mean delete the entire article. Vermont (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• Delete all the relevant cited information can be or is included in List of fictional aircraft no need for a seperate list for military related fiction. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• @MilborneOne: Maybe not, but Wikipedia do have {{See also}} and {{Main}} templates for a reason.--Biografer (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I cant see the relevance to this discussion they would not be needed as they would not have or likely to need a target article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: It currently does use a {{Main}} template in the List of fictional aircraft. On the overall list, each topic is a sentence, where on the article up for deletion here, each topic is a paragraph or more. Vermont (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Vermont: and @Biografer: - As a solution to this problem I recommend we take all the relevant content from this article and transfer it over to the List of fictional aircraft page, and that way everyone get to keep their input - FOX 52 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Vermont (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan.--Biografer (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of fictional aircraft, since this list is a duplicate. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment This discussion was created without the {{afd2}} template and nver transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 09:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• Merge The contested article meets the standards for an independent article in Wikipedia but, since a List of fictional aircraft exists, the best way forward is to merge this text, with almost all content intact, into the bigger list. -The Gnome (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Like parent article List of fictional aircraft, it has been WP:BOMBARDed with "sources" but few to none of them are reliable or actually about the aircraft in question. Pure listcruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Convert to disambiguation. Consensus is that in the present state, the article is mostly redundant to more specific concepts and thus can serve as a disambiguation, especially since it's poorly written in its current state. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Presenter

Presenter (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)

Unreferenced WP:DICDEF and content fork of all the other types of presenter. If kept, maybe this could be reduced to a dab page. --woodensuperman 10:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not going to comment vote here as I see that I first created the article in 2002, when there were not a whole lot of articles on the encyclopedia. I agree that disambiguation is probably a good idea - I see that the original content referred only to television presenters. I think the present wording is actually misleading about what constitutes a presenter. Deb (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, the nominator is trying elsewhere to get journalists on television called entertainers. This article is one of the links used to show that journalists are journalists and not televised entertainers. If I'm wrong and this is done in good faith, my apologies, but the timing raises the question. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

No I'm not, and it has absolutely nothing to do with it. Please strike your bad faith accusations. --woodensuperman 11:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If you say so, then sure. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"This article is one of the links used to show that journalists are journalists and not televised entertainers" seems irrelevant to the nomination and does not seem like a reason to keep to me, especially seeing as the entire article has no sources, and better articles on the topics, including news presenters exist elsewhere. It's like you're !voting to keep purely to push your own agenda. --woodensuperman 11:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Interested editors may want to read Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#WP:PERFNAV and its relationship to news anchors/presenters to decipher whatever the hell Randy is on about. --woodensuperman 12:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You are in good faith saying you don't know "whatever the hell Randy is on about" and then link to the discussion where this page is linked to whatever the hell I'm on about. Please strike your inaccurate "____ever the hell" (just kidding, no need to strike, especially if you really don't know). But this page is fine and is a notable topic, it just needs a few sources and some editing. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep – Notable topic which is distinctly different from journalists and news presenters and is useful for linking. If there are problems with the article then this can be addressed through normal editing not deletion, WP:SOFIXIT. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete or DAB (secondary): Not notable. One reference (a glossary) for a 492 word article means there is a lot of original research or close paraphrasing. I am continually amazed when I see someone !voting "keep" and commenting SOFIXIT. "If" notability is contested by one it is silly to then comment there is notability (with one reference) so anyone !voting delete needs to fix the article. This seems like a two-way street. Otr500 (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• The topic is notable per se. It is a class of individuals recognizable by the name. The page is pretty straight-forward information, so original research, at most, pertains to the words used as descriptors. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Reply: I am leaning more towards delete because the entire concept, according to references, is confusing at best. There is a lead with a feeble attempt to give a nondescript dictionary explanation while eluding an important aspect that this is a chiefly British term. Why is that not in the lead? The lead deals with two different aspects. A "presenter" as an individual, and a "presenter" as an organization, yet there is nothing in the article (list) concerning the second. The lead is a summary of what is found in the body of an article but this is absent.

"Notable per se" is subjective. This is, in my opinion, wrongly classed and should be a "list-class" if not a DAB because the definition of a glossary would be "a list". As an article this just "presents" things that are already covered on Wikipedia and if not copied, the content, other than "main" links, give evidence of OR but that is a different issue. Notability is not advanced by a reference that is a glossary, specifically K-O from a Public Speaking Course. Being "useful for linking" might be a good argument for ignoring the "rules" but I do not think that will extend to going against any of of the five pillars. I would need something more substantial to even understand what we are trying to present here. Otr500 (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep and recategorise as a dab or list page. There should be something here at such a likely search term. SpinningSpark 14:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• Change to disambiguation page. I'm not sure there's much to say about presenters in general that wouldn't be covered either in a dictionary definition or in the more specific examples of Television presenter and news presenter etc. We certainly should have something at this page, not just a redlink, so dab page between the "main articles" already mentioned seems good.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Daily News (Karachi)

Daily News (Karachi) (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 newspaper fails to meet WP's notability criteria on newspapers and also fails to meet basic GNG. Never produced award winning work and no significant history either. Saqib (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't find any independent coverage - indeed the link to its homepage seemed to link somewhere else. Without such sources, fails NPOV/NOTINDISCRIMINATE/NOTPROMO. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

St Philip's Church (Hyderabad)

St Philip's Church (Hyderabad) (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)

Nothing historic found, fails WP:GEOFEAT. Störm (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Our Lady of Sorrows Church, Kasur

Our Lady of Sorrows Church, Kasur (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)

Nothing historic found. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails, WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Störm (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Sacred Heart Church, Gojra

Sacred Heart Church, Gojra (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)

Nothing historic or encyclopedic. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails, WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Störm (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

St Francis Xavier Church, Sargodha

St Francis Xavier Church, Sargodha (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)

Nothing historic found. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails, WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Störm (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

St. Henry's Church (Lahore)

St. Henry's Church (Lahore) (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)

Nothing historic found. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails, WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Störm (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete the article lacks any sources and does not even give details on when the Church was formed. Not every Catholic parish is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Meher Baba. SOFTDELETE per no input from other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Sheriar Irani

Sheriar Irani (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 fail to see an iota of notability of the subject and any non-trivial significant coverage about him, except in his connection as the father of Meher Baba, in biographies and hagiographies of Meher Baba.Notability isn't inherited.

Deletion/Redirection sought, as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mani Irani, which dealt with Meher Baba's mother's article.

This t/p thread may provide some backgound aspects on the issue. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Vidyananda

Vidyananda (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 individual. Has received minor coverage. This is far from the depth or persistence of coverage demanded by even basic compliance with WP:ANYBIO. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the article itself at this time. One of a series of malformed nominations by the editor--@Accesscrawl: for future nominations please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. --Finngall ^talk 04:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲_水 10:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. Just a WP:ADVOCACY page, lacking reliable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

St. Thomas’ Church, Wah Cantt

St. Thomas’ Church, Wah Cantt (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)

It can't be notable due to events, create article if they're notable. Nothing historic found. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails, WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Störm (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - The 2011 attack is already mentioned at Catholic Church in Pakistan#Anti-Catholicism. If deleted, I don't see a redirect or merge as necessary. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Muhammad Yaseen

Muhammad Yaseen (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)

Business profile, no coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Chairman of the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless passes GNG. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person so fails to meet basic GNG.. Therefore I can't see any significance. --Saqib (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 18:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Claire Boonstra

Claire Boonstra (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 biography with no indiction of notability DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 16:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: The article's Talk page review comments show it to have been a product of a WikiEd event a few months ago, so it is a bit unfair to categorise it as a promotional article. AllyD (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Muhammad Khan (journalist)

Muhammad Khan (journalist) (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)

Winner of National ICT Award is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless they meet relevant notability guidelines WP:JOURNALIST. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails to meet basic GNG. Saqib (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As National ICT Award is being discussed, the outcome of that AFD might be influential here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, » Z0 | talk 08:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Per nomination. Failes WP:GNG. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 04:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Sivananda yoga

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Sivananda yoga
• Articles for deletion/Sivananda yoga (2nd nomination)

Sivananda yoga (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)

Absolutely no reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, only trivial passing mentions in a few R's. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Cesdeva ^(talk) 16:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the article itself at this time. One of a series of malformed nominations by the editor--@Accesscrawl: for future nominations please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. --Finngall ^talk 03:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep entire books have been written on the subject and are found with a simple web search. Just because an article is currently poorly sourced does not mean it should be deleted: that's what WP:BEFORE searches are for. SportingFlyer talk 03:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep To my mind already sufficiently covered in the refs provided. There are also academic treatments, although these tend to focus on Sivananda Saraswati and his school rather than on the practice (e.g. [1], [2], [3]). One could make a case for merging with Sivananda Saraswati, although since the practice seems to have escaped from direct affiliation with the ashrams, that might be less suitable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thomas, Big World! Big Adventures! The Movie

Thomas, Big World! Big Adventures! The Movie (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)

Prior prod removed with one source from a year ago stating the film was planned. Very little of the info in the article is in the source -- much of it is likely guesswork based on the TV series.

Per WP:NFF, future animated films are not notable unless "reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." No such sources provided or found. SummerPhD^v2.0 03:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 17:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete The Variety source clearly describes a TV movie, which is a lot different from a theatrical release. Otherwise, the source is an WP:ADVERT besides that (clearly a part of Variety's advertorial department rather than their news side), and we need more than a bunch of Thomas blogs and IMDb to call this well-sourced. Nate • (chatter) 01:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Sidekiq

Sidekiq (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 see the notability here. Demonstrated coverage consists of incidental mentions only (basically, "we used Sidekiq to do that"); plus one book source I can't check. Maybe that's considered sufficient for such appl;ications, but i don't think so. Ruby/netdev-savvy people please assess. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• The Sidekiq article is a stub about a component used in Ruby web software with heavy processing, like Diaspora or Mastodon open source social networks, GitLab or Discourse software. There are sources to computing conferences. The fact there are several "incidental mentions" in articles from several years show it's a well used software, and as such, is notable. As a "beyond the scene" "infrastructure" component, the visibility is perhaps difficult to see for final users, but from a Ruby web developer point of view, Sidekiq is notable. --Dereckson (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep article. The fact there isn't much news coverage, makes this page all the more important to preserve. Downloads are a limited metric, but as a ruby developer I confirm the importance and prevalence of it. Here are some download stats from official Ruby Gem distro library Shushugah (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to follow the lead of people with greater knowledge here, but I'd like to point out that "The fact there isn't much news coverage, makes this page all the more important to preserve" is directly contrary to our requirements of established in-depth coverage. We don't create the coverage, we merely document its existence. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I learned a policy or two. There are many (non news) reliable sources for its notability, but most of them are not written in very accessible way. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. They also suffer from SEO problems when googling (Alexa ranking is fortunately not a factor for determining quality of citation), so Wikipedia plays a vital role in being that first stop. Shushugah (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, you still need to specifically point out these sources here to make the case ;) For referencing purposes, it's no problem if they are off-line or hard to parse. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Fallon Davis

Fallon Davis (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 seems to be an exemplary case of "inherited notability". As far as I can see, hardly any one of the many sources is predominantly (or in some cases, even in passing) concerned with the person - only with projects she worked on. The few directly applicable sources are promo stublets like this one. Significantly, the "Early Life" section, which has biographical details not connected to work output, is unsourced. Appears to fail WP:NBIO. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - there are many unsourced claims in this WP:BLP, especially about her early life. It appears to be an autobiography, or written by someone with a conflict of interest: note WP:Changing_username/Simple/Archive226#Fallon Davis → Ron Collins. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. Pretty clearly changed the name just in time to publish that article without ringing immediate alarm bells... :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and, thanks to new information, per WP:AUTOBIO (specifically WP:OR/WP:V). <RetroCraft314 talk/> 19:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The Official International Queen Fan Club

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/The Official International Queen Fan Club
• Articles for deletion/The Official International Queen Fan Club (2nd nomination)

The Official International Queen Fan Club (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 seems to be a non-notable organization. The arguments from the 2008 AfD aren't convincing, being in the Guinness Book of World Records isn't a claim of notability. There are no references in the article that suggest GNG is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. as it doesn't pass GNG. Cheers! Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Being around a long time doesn't establish notability (sorry, Granny). They've certainly had enough time to establish notability, but failed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 18:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

International Airport (film)

International Airport (film) (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 film. A failed television pilot (which are rarely notable) which aired as a TV movie. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, fails both WP:NFILM and WP:NFO -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• I would argue it deserves an entry - it aired as a stand alone film, regardless of the fact it was picked up as a pilot. It was made by a noted directed, Don Chaffey, and producer, Aaron Spelling and the cast were very notable.Dutchy85 (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Keep agree with Dutchy, does have some rs press coverage shown in the article WP:AGF as they aren't linked Atlantic306 (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The press coverage is not "significant coverage" as required by NFILM. The first and third are mere TV guides mentioning a program will air that evening. From NFILM: "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, capsule reviews..." -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It can pass WP:GNG independently of WP:NFILM, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Aired after the end of the television season and failed to win any awards. Whatever the claims of an 'all-star cast', the mentions are merely 'this aired' and 'these people starred in it' and 'here's a plot summary'. There's just not enough here to justify an article. Nate • (chatter) 05:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Airport (novel) This source says the material was based on this book, and was basically an attempt to bring Airport (the film) into a weekly television format. So it's at least notable for being that, but not much more. Nate • (chatter) 22:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Should qualify under WP:NTV - A dropped pilot which does go to air as a standalone television film or special [...] may, however, qualify for an article on that latter basis, and an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations. Hzh (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, may qualify being the operative term, following the necessity that "significant evidence that the pilot has notability for reasons beyond simple confirmation of its existence." No person is yet to provide any sources which demonstrate notability. As mentioned earlier, existing references are mere mentions of the basic plot and listings in TV guides - per NTV and NFILM that does not demonstrate notability -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That sentence is about simple announcement of a planned pilot that may not be aired, and this one was aired as a TV film on a TV network, and it is therefore "likely" to be notable as noted in the guideline. There are many sources in books - [4][5][6]. Hzh (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it states "A dropped pilot which does go to air as a standalone television film or special [...] may, however, qualify for an article on that latter basis which refers to "...significant evidence that the pilot has notability for reasons beyond simple confirmation of its existence." The book quotes you mentioned are again trivial mentions that something exists. The film/pilot did not win any awards, does not have a cult following, and is not noted in multiple reliable sources for anything meaningful that would establish notability here for it to hold its own article. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That is a misreading. In a sentence, when two items (or groups of items) are mentioned, the "latter" refers to the second one mentioned, and that is "a standalone television film or special". That is, the notability is determined as television film or special that has been aired on a television network (which is considered likely to be notable). The line you mentioned clearly is about a "pilot in development". Hzh (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The point is, there is still no establishment of notability. The mere existance of a TV pilot becoming a movie fails to do so, and all the references brought up are trivial mentions - not critical review, awards, cult status, etc. which is required to pass NFILM, NTV and indeed the GNG -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

A show that is "likely" to notable and mentioned in books would mean notable. This is not counting the fact there would likely to be reviews, but these would be from a pre-internet era that made them hard to search for. Hzh (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

"Likely" according to what? WP:NFO is clear about requiring notability via reliable sources. The film does not meet any of the 8 criteria in NFO. The closest it gets to is "significant involvement...by a notable person" and even then it could be covered in their bio article, or as Mrschimpf suggested, at the novel's article. But there remains no verifiable, reliable sources to establish notability for this failed pilot in its own right. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

"Likely" is merely a reminder by WP:NTV that a show broadcast on a main network nationally would likely receive significant coverage in the press, which is especially true when there were fewer channels. It is simply harder to find sources for older shows because of the issue of archiving (something not archived on the internet does not mean they don't exist), or special subscription may be required to look for them. Hzh (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not denying that may be the case, but verifiable sources are still needed to establish notability regardless. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Of course, it's noteworthy. A made-for-TV film with an all-star cast, broadcast in prime time on a major network and reviewed by TV critics in newspapers around the country, automatically qualifies for inclusion. TV films regularly pass notability guidelines without any questions and this entry should be no exception.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Not per WP:NFO and WP:NTV. Extensive coverage in verifiable sources are needed. The film was not 'made-for-TV', it was a failed TV pilot which aired on its own, and it was not reviewed by notable critics in great detail, it was listed as 'something on TV that night' in newspaper TV listings at the time. It has not developed a cult following or the other requirements of NFO. NTV says "A dropped pilot which does go to air as a standalone television film...may...qualify" if there is significant evidence of notability for a standalone article. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

A number of made-for-TV films were structured as pilots for potential TV series — some of those features were successful and served as the basis for a TV series — other features merely remained as stand-alone made-for-TV films. International Airport was one of the latter and appears on Wikipedia's List of television films produced for American Broadcasting Company#1985.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

None of that establishes notability. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources. The title should be listed in the article you mention for completeness, but that doesn't mean the title deserves its own article. There are many red links in that list article, and International Airport should be one of them -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not distinguish between "notable" and "non-notable" films. For the purposes of inclusion in Wikipedia, every film from around the world, whether made to be shown in movie theaters or not, is eligible for inclusion. Section header "External links" is expected to contain links to standard film sites, such as IMDb, American Film Institute (AFI), British Film Institute (BFI), Turner Classic Movies (TCMDb), AllMovie, TVGuide, Rotten Tomatoes, etc. References are also expected, of course, with one or two newspaper or magazine reviews being deemed sufficient for avoiding deletion. International Airport has links to IMDb, BFI and TCMDb as well as three cites, including two-and-a-half paragraphs of text in Chicago Tribune, published at the time of the film's premiere.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

That's simply not true. I suggest you read WP:NFILM: "To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage." The external links to imdb, etc are user-generated sites which can't be used to establish notability. The "three cites" are not extensive coverage, they are TV listings detailing basic plot outlines, including the one you linked to. Further, in WP:NFO which mentions that "significant coverage is not always possible to find on the Internet, especially for older films", it lists 5 alternate criteria for such cases, and this film doesn't meet any of them:

1) It is widely distributed on a national network, but has not received full-length reviews by 2 or more nation critics

2) No evidence of historical notability

3) No awards

4) Not preserved in the national archive

5) Not taught in university or college

It also fails the three "inclusionary criteria"

1) Not a unique accomplishment in cinema

2) Not a major part of a notable actor's career that would "clutter up the biography page"

3) America is a major film producing country

This failed TV pilot turned TV movie is not notable by the outlined criteria for general notability or topical notability. -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I am familiar with WP:NFILM and I interpret it to mean that International Airport has met the "reliable sources" qualification under "External links" — in addition to IMDb, which is appended to every film, no one questions the reliability of the BFI and TCMDb links and additional external links to AllMovie or TVGuide can be easily appended. Also, Chicago Tribune gave it a brief write-up, not simply a TV listing.

Furthermore, if those "5 alternate criteria" were to be strictly applied, there would be no need to cherry-pick or single out International Airport for deletion nomination. Deletionists could run riot over the entire List of television films produced for American Broadcasting Company or all titles under Category:Television films by year, with 95 percent of all such titles nominated for deletion.

Ultimately, the barn doors would be wide open. A strict application of the "three inclusionary criteria" would enable deletionists to set upon List of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer films, List of Warner Bros. films, etc and start to AfD each film which they felt was "Not a unique accomplishment in cinema". It would open a Pandora's Box (presumably that would not be one of the films nominated for departure from Wikipedia).    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Lee Seung Ri

Lee Seung Ri (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:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG not met --Quek157 (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to Momoland as {{R avoided double redirect}} of Nancy (South Korean singer), and protect it to avoid recreation. (Not that this will stop the inevitable whack-a-mole games; witness Park Ji Min (BTS), Park Ji-min (1995), Park Ji-min (born 1995), Park Jimin (bts), Park Jimin (male), Park Jimin (musician), Park Jimin BTS, Park Jimin(BTS), Jimin (BTS), Jimin (singer), et cetera ad nauseum). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Draft as the blocked nominator only waited 3 minutes after creation to AFD this which caused the abandonment of the article. In draft space it can go through the AFC process if it is picked up, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Vitals (website)

Vitals (website) (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's currently a dispute whether Vitals is a website or a company. Whatever it is, it doesn't seem to be notable enough to be the subject of an encyclopedia article. There's next to no media coverage beyond a few passing mentions, often as one in a list of doctor review sites. There's nothing better on the "In the news" page on vitals.com, and the article's current sources are even worse. Huon (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This company has had more media attention than most. It was the subject of an NBC Nightly News segment and an NPR Planet Money podcast. https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/employers-offer-cash-incentives-to-encourage-healthcare-shopping-763391043752 http://snip.ly/HDwp?utm_source=StartUp+Health+Insider&utm_campaign=f055468f8c-StartUp_Health_Weekly_News_10-14-2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_250bac26a5-f055468f8c-312240461&mc_cid=f055468f8c&mc_eid=a7bea70577#http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/10/02/445371930/episode-655-pay-patients-save-money

More recently, the company has been mentioned as the partner of several large health plans, including BCBS Massachusetts, BCBS Louisiana and Highmark. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/payer-issues/bcbs-of-massachusetts-to-pay-members-up-to-250-per-procedure-when-they-shop.html http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/business/article_14225bc2-5c16-11e7-8b4f-b36bb8e56c52.html http://www.post-gazette.com/business/healthcare-business/2017/01/27/Highmark-insurance-opens-door-to-health-care-pricing/stories/201701240027 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmariestollars (talk • contribs) 11:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete: does not meet WP:NWEB nor WP:NCORP. Sourcing is passing mentions, routine funding news and / or WP:SPIP. Just a directory listing with no value to the readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Jean-François Susbielle

Jean-François Susbielle (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)

Fully unsourced bio of a French author. No assertion of notability for his books or his life. Most contents were added by an IP SPA in 2008. — JFG ^talk 19:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR. There isn't much to find about him or his books either. <RetroCraft314 talk/> 19:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Can the broadcast interviews mention at External links be considered reliable sources? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. czar 17:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Jeffrey Lopez

Jeffrey Lopez (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:Bio. Only source I could find online appears to be a bio for a business he works for, and no other coverage about him seems available. Editor10293813 (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Fails Wikipedia notability requirements. Searches do not provide reliable sources. Second source in article barely has information on the person. Araratic | talk 09:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

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