Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 14: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:51, 14 July 2018

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 July	15 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry

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

Not necessarily a rivalry, both schools have no notable history. However, both did play on the field for nearly forty years, but I don't think it could be considered a rivalry due this fact. There are many Southeastern Conference teams who played traditionally before and after the expansion of Southeastern Conference, and don't consider them as rivals. I also could not find any reliable sources to support this as a major rivalry. CollegeRivalry (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the only source that describes this as a rivalry is a fan-blog that calls it "forgotten". It doesn't remotely compare to Georgia's rivalries with Auburn, Florida, or Georgia Tech. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per power~enwiki. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches do not reveal significant coverage dealing with this series as a historical rivalry. That said, there is IMO also room for stand-alone articles about historically significant series that have had a particularly long history, major upsets or multiple match-ups where both teams were highly ranked. Here, the history is not so long -- the period of annual play ran only from 1966 to 2002. Further, there has not been even one game where both teams were ranked in the top 10 -- the highest ranked matchup was 1968 (#13 vs. #17). Nor is there a history of major upsets -- the biggest upset was 1967 (unranked Ole Miss upset #3 Georgia in an early season game). Cbl62 (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – nothing more than a cross-divisional matchup that occurs once every few years. PCN 02 WPS 05:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pile on vote here. The very first reference is titled "the forgotten rivalry." "Forgotten" could probably be interpreted as "not notable" here. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 11:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Focus on the word "forgotten" is misplaced. Remember, notability is not temporary. Accordingly, a historic rivalry from 50 or even 100 years ago that is defunct or "forgotten" by today's fan base remains notable for our purposes. Here, my searches focused on the years when the GA-MS series was most active, and I did not find significant coverage even then dealing with it as a rivalry. So it's not that this is a "forgotten" rivalry, but, rather, that it appears to be a "never was" rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and merge as needed. This may be a real thing, under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, but clearly not independently WP:Notable. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Whether or not it is currently accepted in credible Physiological circles, it has been convincingly demonstrated that the topic has been widely discussed for more than a century. This close in no way indicates that the current state of the article is balanced or comprehensive. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dromomania

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

Spent a bit doing some research on this and so far as I can tell, this is a pseudo-science fringe-theory type nonsense article. The alternate name "clinical travel addiction" brings up even less than "Dromomania" and scholarly papers give zilch (aside from a footnote in one paper.) Google results in multiple languages bring up a lot of nonsense and circular references and despite several claims that this is in the DSM, after looking for it myself, I can find no evidence that Dromomania or it's various names is a notable or real affliction and it certainly isn't in the DSM. This appears to be more like a sensational Buzzfeed-esque headline than anything encyclopedic. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My edits were what prompted the deletion in the first place. I can confirm dromomania is not in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The term was popularized by Mad Travelers (2000), which is a biography and not a scientific work. I suppose it's not forever? I'm still kind of rooting for dromomania because it's so bizarre :) Maybe the article can be reintroduced if the term becomes so popular to be included in dictionaries. Contains Sulfites (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources exist a long time before that. The case mentioned (from the 19th century) appears to be more like dissociative fugue, which is still recognised for now, but the definition encompasses both that and wanderlust; could it be that it was once recognised as a disorder but is now not? I don't think it's an exact match for either so redirect would be misleading, and notability is not temporary. Peter James (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Also the nominator had just redirected Jean-Albert Dadas to it, with a summary including "covered by actual RS in the target" - if that is true, it shouldn't be deleted. Peter James (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that was my mistake but I was also restoring an existing redirect. I stand by my AfD. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. This is a real thing and has been called that for centuries. [1] CNN calls it "dromomania, an uncontrollable psychological urge to wander" [2] Is it in any psychiatry textbooks? Dictionaries include it. [3] Dream Focus 22:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is based entirely off of one book, which is both misleading and WP:FRINGE. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/dromomania says its defined in Medical Dictionary, © 2009 Farlex and Partners. 32 Wikipedia articles reference Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary, but it doesn't have an article. Is it a reliable publication? Dream Focus 22:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its defined also in The American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary[4], referenced in 59 Wikipedia articles, and other medical dictionaries as well. If there is a list somewhere showing what medical dictionaries are considered reliable, and which ones let you search them online, that'd be useful. Dream Focus 23:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And they're all mostly circular (specifically Wikipedia) and based on the fact that this poorly sourced article exists. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not. From when they were written it's possible that they were based on Mad Travelers but not from any Wikipedia article, but older books could just be not as easy to find online because Google book search has less coverage of them, with the exception of 19th century books for which copyright has expired. Peter James (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring specifically to the wikipedia links. Thanks. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is clearly a fringe theory and fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 01:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a sufficiently notable topic historically, but adjust tone to reflect this, and (briefly) distinguish it from (facetious/colloquial) modern usage... or Merge to Wanderlust#Psychology (?) or Fugue state (?). Coverage in American journal of psychiatry (1910), Peculiarities of Behavior co-written by Wilhelm Stekel, Alix Joffroy cowrote a monograph on the topic[5], etc. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on historical usage. I see it mentioned (briefly) here in an article in the American Academy of Pediatrics from 1913 as one cause of runaway children. I can't see the article, but it's actually in the title of this much more recent case. Here is another book reference, "Travelling in Different Skins", which is a lit crit book but mentions some further sources that could be potentially added. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The usage here is a letter submitted by a "T.E.C., Jr., M.D." and not a scientific paper. This is virtually impossible to locate, but I'll see what I can do. Nick (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an important concept in the history of psychology. I am doing extensive research on this topic and will improve the article shortly. Please do not close this discussion until at least 27 July 2018. Daask (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give Daask some more time to improve the article, and to confirm whether evident consensus can change post that...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A brief search yielded numerous mentions in scholarly articles - [6][7][8] and books - [9][10]. The rationale for the AfD is puzzling. The term at the least was used historically, whether it is currently a recognized medical condition is neither here nor there since notability is not limited to only to what is in use currently. Hzh (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject. jonnycraig888 (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The subject ("dromomania" or "vagabond disease") is a mental disorder listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It is not "pseudo-science fringe-theory type nonsense" as denoted in the nomination. A quite strong case could be made for a Merge into "Wanderlust". -The Gnome (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the DSM is it listed? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Condé Nast Traveler, in this article, reports that “dromomania," sometimes called “vagabond neurosis,” was officially added to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as an “impulse-control disorder” and “psychiatric problem” in 2000. Also, I see Dizionario Oxford della medicina listing "dromomania." Real or not, the disorder was used to protect many a deserter in World War I, so characterizing it as "fringe nonsense" misses many points. -The Gnome (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The conde nast article is incorrect as I can find no evidence that it's actually listed in the DSM. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable term, based on sources identified above and in the article, but I would like to see some balance - perhaps criticism of the concept being scientifically accepted as a legitimate medical condition? There's some recent coverage about this criticism in Adventure.com [[11]], although that seems to be kind of like a blog and not as reliable a source as we'd like. It does speak to the popular acceptance of the term though. A simple search using "NY Times" pulls up a review from 1977 [[12]] which mentions the term also, and a 1979 fashion article [[13]], also showing earlier popular acceptance of the term. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Mayes

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The award listed, "Best New Starlet of the Year (People's Choice)", is not significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even close to notability. We have a clear overabundance of articles on pornographic performers. I know I will get attacked for saying it, but it is true. Any reasonable criteria that required as much reliable source coverage of them as require of most people would cutr this category in half.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Definate lack of RS for a BLP, and no notability. Curdle (talk) 07:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If only we could keep on looks!, Anyway unfortunately no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 19:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. XBIZ fan awards str neither well-known nor significant. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#2. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 18:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Onision

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

Not important enough for his own Wikipedia page. U injury (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Above user have been blocked by Ronhjones for being a vandalism only account. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Ronhjones. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No actual reason provided as to why he doesn't deserve a wikipedia page. He also has 1,690 results on google's news section. 344917661X (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - there are plenty of news sources, and most satisfy Sig Cov and Independent. Reliable seems a higher bar for most to jump, but a reasonable reading through seems to indicate a bare pass. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Onision have significant cover with independent media. And he's a major (albeit contriversal) Youtuber https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=onision&rlz=1CAACAO_enGB805&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo_6v7xqPcAhXLA8AKHfd4D8UQ_AUIDCgD&biw=960&bih=932 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Query/Comment @Tyw7 and 344917661X: - does the proposer of an AfD being banned for pure vandalism (in the sense that their account was always a vandalism-only account, as opposed to other reasons for deletion) justify removal of the afd given that there are no other deletion !votes at this point? Nosebagbear (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: I don't know. I thought I might add that comment in case the closing admin isn't aware of the fact. It's more of an FYI. Perhaps another user who's more knowledgable of Wikipedia's policy might chime in? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also did Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's Alive! (card game). Probably as attempt to have some "good" edits. You could try seeing what other's think at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Not sure if there is a reason for removing this AfD early, might be better to let it run its course. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 12:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#2. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 18:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's Alive! (card game)

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

It's not really important, and doesn't need its own Wikipedia page. U injury (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you please give a reason as to why this card game isn't notable by backing up your claim by checking wikipedia's notability guidelines to see if this game fails them? This AFD seems to be suspicious due to all the warnings on your talk page related to edits. 344917661X (talk)

However, i'm not sure if this card game is notable enough. 344917661X (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't established in the current version of the article. Wired (magazine) has a review of Candle Quest, which it says was the original version of this but published later, but that's only one instance of significant coverage and multiple are needed - do others exist? Peter James (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator blocked as vandalism only account. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 12:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep some reviews can be found at [14]. Some appear to be reliable sources: [15], [16], [17]. It's unclear if these _are_ reliable, and the language barrier makes it hard for me to be certain. Hobit (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article has been significantly expanded since nomination. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Moller

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

Page has simply been re-created with no references still, some ten years later! I gather the creator intends to use the enternal links as refs at a future date, but the BBC link isn't anything usable as it just lists a handful of songs that have been played on the radio (presumably BBC Scotland). Beyond mentions on some blog type websites, Google doesn't bring much up on this artist. Todmuggins (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@John: to notify the article creator about this AfD. AllyD (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously as the article creator I am going to say Keep. I believe the sources, particularly the two BBC ones, comfortably establish notability. It is an untruth to say Page has simply been re-created...; I did not even look at the deleted version from ten years ago but have based the article on more recent sources. --John (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is enough for WP:MUSICBIO now. Curdle (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am convinced that the sourcing adequately meets GNG. The nominator's rationale is incorrect, as John notes above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurricanehink (talk • contribs)

Hurricane Beryl

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

Non-notable Category 1 hurricane, failed to even affect land as a tropical system. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Content can be accommodated easily at 2018 Atlantic hurricane season#Hurricane Beryl. Buttons0603 (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator - wasn't aware that a merge discussion would be more appropriate, apologies. Buttons0603 (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several things wrong here. This is not how you request this (it could be a redirect) and second the article is too large now to fit in the 2018 AHS page. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Doesn't fail NOTNEWS, sufficient news sources in multiple languages covering the event. Impact on land is applicable to the overall storm regardless of whether or not it was a tropical cyclone at the time. AfD is inappropriate for this situation; a merge discussion on the talk page is how this should be handled. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I echo the sentiments that Cyclonebiskit noted earlier. A tropical cyclone need not remain a tropical cyclone to be newsworthy, particularly when impacting land. From what I see, there is fairly clear, reliable, and verifiable coverage of Beryl's effects in the Caribbean, regardless if they were remnants of the storm. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 19:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose – My statements echo those of Cyclonebiskit and TheAustinMan, wherein a tropical cyclone itself does not need to be a tropical cyclone to be noteworthy. Beryl was in addition a very unusual tropical cyclone, developing in the Main Development Region within the otherwise unfavorable month of July, as well as regenerating over the Gulf Stream as a subtropical cyclone. I see nothing here to remove. Cooper 19:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suit combination – 10 missing

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

WP:NOTMANUAL. Having an article for every single suit combination in bridge does not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. Coverage of a specific suit combination in reliable sources is limited to a computer-generated entry in a list of all possible suit combinations. This name is also not a plausible search term for Suit combination so redirecting wouldn't make sense. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; WP:NOTMANUAL sums it up. The nav template {{Suit combinations}} should be deleted as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article Suit combination, or else with article on Contract bridge - this does not really need a standalone article, and heading the article is a note saying "Main artice - Suit combination". Vorbee (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 10:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just one of dozens or hundreds of such situations that arise in a hand. No reason to have an article on every single one of them. Delete the template too. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright this thumbsucker of an unsourced text that lacks any notability whatsoever outside the confines of the game. No trumps. -The Gnome (talk) 09:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Triefenbach

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

Possible hoax. I can't find any evidence this person existed. There was a German family named Triefenbach that moved to St. Louis and Illinois, including a Johann Heinrich Triefenbach (8 May 1820 – 8 August 1871) but he adopted the name Henry, not Jeremy. And anyway I can't find any evidence of notability, amazing survival story, inventor of outdoor recreation (what?) or this autobiography, It's a Good Deal. Only Jeremy Triefenbach I found that had any notability was a high school football quarterback in St. Louis. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

′′′Delete′′′ As possible hoax and due to lack of sources identified to substantiate notability. Edison (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; possible hoax. I see no evidence of book titled "it's a good deal" by anyone of this name. No references and no claim of significance or importance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article does not cite any sources and is extremely vague on this man's dates - it just says he was born in the early 1820s and died at the end of the nineteenth century. Vorbee (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have a sense that Wikipedia coverage of 19th-century German and expatriate German educationists is less than it could be. Karl G. Maeser has been the subject of a major book for example, and at some point I will undertake to better align the article with insights from the work of A. LeGrand Richards. The article on the person he allegedly influenced is in severe need of editing for flow, but the article on Triefenbach is just not supported by anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- our article on Hahn actually claims his notions of "outdoor education" were drawn from Bernhard Zimmerman who was director of physical education at the University of Goenigen. It also places the emergence of these ideas, at least on Hahn's part, probably in the 1930s, although it is a bit iffy on timing details. The fact is that various ideas and manifestations of outdoor education go back to the founding of the Boy Scouts, and many other movements about the same time in 1910, and there are other things going on before that. Richard Ian Kimball' recreation in Zion work begins to suggest this was widespread in the 1900-1925 time frame, but the birth of the YMCa is in 1844, Naismith invents basketball at a YMCA school in 1891, and there are lots of other notions of renweal from sport and the outdoors going around for a long time. The article on Kurt Hahn says about nothing on his early life, it says he founded a school in 1920, and then skips to his excile from Germany in about 1933. Hahn was the cofounder of Outward Bound, but I see less than clear sourcing to make this the actual start of outdoor education. Scouting was formed in 1907, and organized camping existed earlier than that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is claimed that the forest schools started in 1927 in Wisconsin under Dean H. L. Russell of the University of Wisconsin College of Agriculture were the first example of such a program. On the other hand, the paragraph on the Wisconsin forest schools in the article on forest schools lacks any sources, so I can not at this point vouch for its accuracy. This is something that could use more study. What is clear is that no one anywhere outside of this Wikipedia article seems to connect Triefenbach to the rise of this movement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mention of the snowdrift survival story, and the supposed autobiography, originated as far as I can tell in the snowdrift article by an IP edit, five days before this article was created with no mention of it at first. Deep Gabriel (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A reference added when the article was created was probably intended to link to the page now archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20070208121724/http://www.isu.edu/outdoor/history.htm but there is no mention of Triefenbach there. Peter James (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Comment There appear to be two almost identical instances of citogenesis related to this article in external websites that really ought to know better, both of which seem to have just taken some of the content of the Snowdrift page (which still contains the story about Triefenbach with no source!) and passed it off as fact. [18] [19] IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 18:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V due to total lack of reliable independent source coverage. This is true whether it's a hoax or not. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 12:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Spahn

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

Has a lot of unreliable sources. » Shadowowl | talk 17:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe he has won three Daytime Emmys - that is where his nominations are anyway. While not as prestigious as Primetime Emmys, I think his overall body of work is sufficient for notability, and it's not a hoax.[20] —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Soul

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

This article does not contain reliable sources, only garbage ones. » Shadowowl | talk 17:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Power "Kosa Leka"

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

The article states that he won an award, but there are no sources for that. This article has a lot of garbage sources. » Shadowowl | talk 17:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 06:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ørmen

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

While adding references to this article, I realised not a whole lot exist and looking at Google Maps it is quite obvious why. Therefore, expanding this article is going to be close to impossible as far as notability go. The article is linked to by List of villages in Østfold Baerentp (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPLACE -- » Shadowowl | talk 19:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per same reasoning as Shadowowl. Probably an agricultural community, there would be sources to find in annales with such a focus. Geschichte (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it was once big enough to support its own train station. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Keep’’’. No further discussion needed. —Doncram (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Villages are almost always considered to be notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above !voters above. --Oakshade (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons above. Doremo (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Wettreich

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur and his business ventures. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP and / or routine notices about the subject's businesses, which are non-notable either. Created by Special:Contributions/Clint1885 with no other contributions outside this topic, and then exclusively edited by a variety of SPAs. Ernst & Young "Entrepreneur of the Year" is an award that's not significant and well known. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment needs a ton of cleanup. This is a spammy loaf that looks like a personal corporate bio. With that said, there are entries here in a publication called Exame. Is that a worthwhile Brazilian rag? Not prepared to make a determining to keep without more info on whether local sources are valid. Leaning to keep but that could change if published sources are just nonsense. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 14:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Portugal Wikipedia mentions him as a creator of the iBest Award only, no biography there.Xx236 (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I've done cleanup on the citations and added a 4th, FYI. This is the Diff. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unless there are clear policy-based keep or delete or alternative suggestions, there's no consensus evident here as of now...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: the sources added to the article do not amount to notability. They are unselective databases and self-published newsletters:

"Marcos Wettreich — Founder & CEO @ Brasil CT". Crunchbase. Retrieved July 20, 2018.
"How does online video stack up against TV?". Marketingservicestalk. July 20, 2007. Archived from the original on October 13, 2007.
"Brasil Telecom Buys Stake in iBest"Free access subject to limited trial, subscription normally required. Brazil Telecom Newsletter. Boston: Information Gatekeepers. 5 (12): 10. December 2001 – via Google Books.
"Marcos Wettreich: Executive Profile & Biography". Bloomberg. Retrieved July 20, 2018.

None meet WP:SIGCOV requirement for independent, secondary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of reliable sources. While it is reliable, the Bloomberg listing is so insignificant that it lacks even his age, compensation, or board memberships. His entrepreneurial endeavors are so run of the mill that none have their own articles. The date of birth appears to be original research from the subject himself. We are a web host for every businessman who wants his own soapbox - we are a charity with a serious mission. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 04:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Milton

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

No reliable sources. » Shadowowl | talk 17:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reliable sources including Chicago Tribune have been added. With 5 titles in his sport, he should also qualify under WP:SPORTSPERSON. Hzh (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meet GNG and as reliable sources "Chicago Tribune". Emily Khine (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sourcing is still atrocious, but serves to demonstrate that notability guidelines are met, particularly WP:SPORTSPERSON. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. On strength of the arguments, deletion wins here. Keep !votes are primarily "seems notable" without in-depth analysis of sourcing, and those advocating deletion provide reasons backed up by guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hinkel Bakery

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

Run-of-the-mill company. No sources. » Shadowowl | talk 17:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I thought this would be a reasonable AfD given the article, but it turns out there are a number of sources as well as one that indicates there is also a TV show - an argument that a good WP:BEFORE check has to check foreign-based articles in both languages. Sources (in no particular order) include: Source 1, Source 2, Source 3, Source 4, Source 5. There are others that a quick look can find. I reckon at least 3 of these tick the boxes (obviously my knowledge of german news sources isn't widespread). Nosebagbear (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Equally, there's an argument for a good old check on the relevant WP:NCORP guidelines (which have been recently revised) and required "intellectually independent" references. None of the references you've provided meet this requirement. HighKing⁺⁺
- Comment: In the TV show Frag doch mal die Maus Bäckerei Josef Hinkel and Bäckerei Michael Hinkel are two of nine bakeries from Düsseldorf which take part in baking a gingerbread house: “Bäckerei Josef Hinkel, Hercules Vollkorn- und Mühlenbäckerei, Bäckerei Pass, Bäckerei Schüren, Bäckerei Kapust, Stadtbäcker Westerhorstmann, Bäckerei Behmer, Bäckerei Michael Hinkel und die Bäckerei Puppe.” [21] --AlternativesLebensglück (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added the references suggested by @Nosebagbear:. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources identified by Nosebagbear and added to the article by ~~Amorymeltzer~~ Eastmain are not "intellectually independent" and therefore fail WP:ORGIND. This rp-online.de reference repeats a post on the company's Facebook page (PRIMARY source) and fails ORGIND. This backwelt.de reference has no attributed journalist and is simply an ad or announcement for a TV show with a photo of Josef Hinkel. The company is a mere mention-in-passing with no in-depth information. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The tonight.de reference is a local guide to someone's "5 favorite shops in Dusseldorf" and provides a profile of the Hinkels and some of the products but does not provide any in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The ekathimerini.com reference relies entirely on an interview with Stavros whose bread is available in the Hinkel bakery and also relies on interview/quotation from Hinkel. It contains no intellectually independent information or analysis and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Finally, the derwesten.de reference is an ad for "kiffer krust" bread (made with hemp) which was presented on the bakery's Facebook page. Fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Overall, it appears that the Hinkel Bakery is popular and much loved in Dusseldorg for its excellent bread but that doesn't translate to an organization that meets the criteria for notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @HighKing: I didn't add any sources or edit the article at all; I think you mean Eastmain. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed, thank you! HighKing⁺⁺ 21:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @HighKing: The television program itself is an independent indicator of notability from a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Eastmain Unless the TV program was actually about the bakery, then it isn't an indicator of notability. The fact is, the TV program was about craft bakers from the Düsseldorf area baking a huge gingerbread house. That might make the gingerbread house notable (maybe it broke records?) but it doesn't make the bakers notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Editors may want to take a look at the corresponding German article at de:Bäckerei Hinkel, which has additional references. It is also at the German equivalent of AfD. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This bakery is not notable. 5 shops and 4 Mio. Euro is not enough. Other bakeries have 18 shops and 250 employees. [22] --AlternativesLebensglück (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at WP:OTHER - normally its an argument from those trying to demonstrate notability but it applies both ways. Smaller companies are frequently more notable than their larger equivalents. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a small local bakery which is not well-known outside Düsseldorf. All the newspaper reports are from Düsseldorf. --AlternativesLebensglück (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how large a population is needed before its coverage becomes wide enough (regardless of geographical size). For example, my (UK) countywide paper is considered reliable, and its population is only about 5% more than Dusseldorf's. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the newspapers reports are just reproductions of a facebook entries of the Hinkel bakery which were reprinted in the newspaper which advertise a new kind of bread with marihuana seeds. Baking Bread: Düsseldorfer Bäckerei verkauft "Kiffer-Kruste", rp-online.de (Bakery in Düsseldorf sells "marihuana smoker crust"); „Baking Bread“: Düsseldorfer Bäckerei verkauft „Kiffer-Kruste“ mit Hanfsamen und Hanföl, bakery Düsseldorf from Düsseldorf sells "marihuana smoker crust") The writing style is advertising and not neutral. Entry on Facebook

Tonight is just an online portal of Rheinische Post which isn't published in print. Five bakeries from Düsseldorf are mentioned: Bulle, Hinkel, isabella, Puppe and Terbuyken. ',

The TV show Frag doch mal die Maus shows a short documentary film about baking a gingerbread house. Nine local bakeries from Düsseldorf were involved: Josef Hinkel, Michael Hinkel which belong to the founder of Hinkel bakery and seven other bakeries, Hercules, Pass, Schüren, Kapust, Westerhorstmann, Behmer and Puppe. (“Beteiligt sind: Bäckerei Josef Hinkel, Hercules Vollkorn- und Mühlenbäckerei, Bäckerei Pass, Bäckerei Schüren, Bäckerei Kapust, Stadtbäcker Westerhorstmann, Bäckerei Behmer, Bäckerei Michael Hinkel und die Bäckerei Puppe.”) Bäckerei means bakery. [23], Backwelt is not a newspaper, but an online portal for bakeries.

http://www.ekathimerini.com/214045/article/ekathimerini/community/award-winning-stavros-evangelous-smyrnaean-bread-proves-a-hit-in-dusseldorf deals with a Greek baker who works at the bakery. The newspaper report is not focused on the Hinkel bakery, but on the Greek baker. --AlternativesLebensglück (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough with coverage beyond local sources, should qualify under WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MILL is not policy and it's easy to find sources when you allow for the language, e.g. this. Andrew D. (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response True, but just to point out that you haven't pointed to any policies to support your argument. WP:GNG and WP:NCORP are the guidelines for corporations/organizations and your link above fails since it is not significant coverage and isn't even about the bakery but about one of the bakers. Your reference fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. Also, two references are required that meet the criteria for establishing notability and so far, we don't have any. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:GNG and WP:NCORP aren't policies either; they are mere guidelines. It's up to the nominator to make a case for action to be taken but actual policies which support my position include: WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lovely strawman argument - I never said they were policies. But they are the relevant guidelines which provide clarification on how to interpret our policies and are accepted by the community as such. You can call them "mere guidelines" if you like but they're considered an excellent standard by which to measure notability of articles such as this one. I'll leave it to the closing admin to make sense and understand the relevance of the policies you've listed above. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing und AlternativesLebensglück -- DexterPointy (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see a clear argument this article must be kept or deleted. Coverage of this bakery as one of nine that baked a gingerbread house is clearly trivial, and this is a PR gimmick. Other coverage (such as [24]) is more substantial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Meadows

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sourced to online directories and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability, Hasn't won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia's most over inflated categories are those for pornographic performers, although I would put the sports categories as a close second. This individual clearly does not merit an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martín Deiros

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

4 sources, of which 2 are unreliable and 1 is a mention. The article says that he won the Pampa award, however, this is not stated in the source. » Shadowowl | talk 16:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pitambari Products Pvt. Ltd

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

Puff piece by undisclosed paid sockfarm. Includes garbage sources. » Shadowowl | talk 16:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definately a product of bad UPE. Sources are all pretty abysmal, and do not appear independent. Couldnt find any others. Does not meet WP:GNG. or WP:CORPDEPTH. Curdle (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Irdning#Sport. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ATV Arena

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

Fails to establish notability or satisfy WP:GNG. Says some notable teams have trained there while passing through, but no indication of any actual notable games or events taking place. Also poorly referenced. Jellyman (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping if you had replied 14:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping if you had replied 14:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping if you had replied 14:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping if you had replied 14:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It exists, and it's mentioned a lot, but doesn't appear to be the subject of in-depth coverage. If you exclude a long list of false positives [25] not much comes up. If you switch to news sources after this exclusion chain, it's just jack [26]. Even general web hits are mostly photos. I.e., the training ground is real, and it gets used for taking player photos, and people mention it in passing, but no one seems to be writing about the arena itself – its founding and history, its significance in the world. It's rather like trying to have an article about building Mariana 3 on the Apple Inc. campus. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 03:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Irdning#Sport As a possible search term. Govvy (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Govvy - possibile search term but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 07:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Govvy and GiantSnowman - Plausible search term. –Davey2010^Talk 20:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jade-Blue Eclipse

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Alleged crimes listed do not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interest shown by only one reliable source, a local paper. Not enough to pass WP:BASIC. No real claim of notability per WP:NACTOR or WP:PORNBIO. An undocumented immigrant using a stolen ID doesn't rise to notability per WP:N/CA. Colorful but not notable. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LiveWorkPlay

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

Potentially fails WP:NCORP. This article has a lot of garbage sources. » Shadowowl | talk 16:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have formatted most of the bare url references to use cite templates. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wow, these sources are truly rough, even after being filled in. Sources I'm finding - Ottawa Sun profile, sponsored content, several mentions in the Ottawa Citizen with one profile of their 20th anniversary, and a mention in the National Post. Some of their volunteers have received a governmental award. Their media page is also a mess of local news articles/broadcasts where their founders/volunteers were mentioned or made a comment. They seem to do great and important work, but they don't seem to pass WP:NCORP. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 04:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weak sources, a WP:BEFORE search does not turn up anything better. Clearly fails WP:CORP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 05:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Neely

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

Has no references. » Shadowowl | talk 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of the article merely lists where the musician has performed. References for these around the Internet should be fairly straightforward to come across with some intent. The relevant notability guideline, which would make a stronger case for deletion if it is argued that the criteria are not met, can be accessed here: Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. MB190417 (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2018. MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Kim (politician)

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

Non-notable political staffer and candidate. Does not pass WP:GNG as few sources discuss him, and the ones that do do so in the context of a political campaign, where the election is the subject. Does not pass WP:NPOL as merely a candidate for higher office. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. --RaviC (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Just like everyone else, he can get an article if and when he wins. Marquardtika (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete une;lected canidates for office are not notable, there is nothing about Kim that makes him an exception to this rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2018; the article is promotional in addition to all the other concerns already mentioned. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2018 There are candidates who are independently notable, but Kim is not at that point based on the sources in the article and available elsewhere. Alansohn (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect. As always, every candidate in every district is not automatically notable just for having his name on the ballot — he has to win the election in November to be deemed notable as a politician, and qualifies for an article before that only if he can either (a) show and reliably source credible evidence that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before he was a candidate (such as having already held another notable office, or meeting the required notability standard for his prior career), or (b) he can show that his campaign coverage has gone so far beyond everybody else's campaign coverage that he has a credible claim to being special. But neither of those conditions is true here. This can be recreated in November if he wins, since his notability claim will have changed from candidate to officeholder, but nothing here is enough to deem him already notable today. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article above and merge any reasonable information into it, as per usual. SportingFlyer talk 21:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and the WP:NPOL. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect. He's not automatically notable for having his name on the ballot, he's notable because there's a new story about him in a major publication every week. Just found him again in the Washington Post.^[1] If the fact that most mentions are in the context of the election means it's not noteworthy enough to have a page, it should redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2018.Lebanonman19 (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's always a news story about every damn candidate in the entire United States every week. And having his name mentioned in a news story doesn't automatically assist in building his notability, either — he has to be the subject of a piece of coverage before it assists in demonstrating notability, not just a person whose name happens to show up in coverage of something else. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is the subject of almost every article cited on his page.Lebanonman19 (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage which exists specifically in the context of an election campaign does not assist in building the notability of a person who wasn't already notable for other reasons before becoming a candidate, because that type of coverage always exists for every candidate in every election at the federal and state and municipal levels. So the only sources that count as potential notability builders here are the ones that exist outside the context of the campaign itself, and all of the sources that exist outside the campaign context here, such as #9 "At war over Obama's new war in Iraq", are mere namechecks of his existence in coverage about other things. For campaign coverage to contribute notability in and of itself, it would have to be shown that he's getting so much more campaign coverage than everybody else is that he would have a credible claim to being special — candidates are not automatically deemed notable enough for encyclopedia articles just because some campaign coverage exists, because there's no candidate for whom some campaign coverage ever doesn't exist. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2018. Most candidates for elected office are notable only in the context of their election. Any relevant information about the campaign can be added to the election page (and I do think that there is usually room for expansion in the appropriate election article to describe the candidate and their main [reliably sourced] campaign themes). --Enos733 (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect since he is only notable for being a candidate, but there is a shot he'll win come November, and why waste this start? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Rain

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The awards listed, such as "FOXE Award – Vixen of the Year", are not significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability, Hasn't won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another article on a person who does not meet the notability requirements for pornographic performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 19:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither "Vixen of the Year" nor "Favorite Anal Starlet" meets the well known/significant award standard. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

En Kelvikku Enna Bathil

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

Fails WP:NFILM as it has no reliable sources » Shadowowl | talk 16:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Renowned award-winning director. Starring the iconic actor Rajinikanth and Sripriya. Nationally released theatrical film. These are all passing criteria of WP:NFILM. Current state of article has nothing to do with notability and this AfD reeks of WP:BIAS (such an American film with the same article state would never be considered for deletion). --Oakshade (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Oakshade that this should pass GNG, but have failed to find a single non-trivial mention. Book-length biographies of Rajinikanth barely mention this film (one fails to mention it at all, the other lists the title in a filmography with no additional detail). The Youtube links are presumably copyvios and should be removed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While advising Oakshade to withhold from accusing nominators of bias, this discussion is being re-listed for clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 05:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no one has presented the indepth secondary sourcing needed to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Sorry, just nothing in some of the most comprehensive books on Southern Film Industry.I managed to extract the cast-list, runtime and year of production; nothing else.∯WBG^converse 13:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam the Kid

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

Consists of unreliable sources. Someone speaking Portuguese should assess the reliability of the Rimasebatidas source, as that is the only source that can possible be reliable.. » Shadowowl | talk 16:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm currently replacing all the sources; just a note to !voters: this[27] was the version that was nominated for deletion. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Subject clears WP:GNG, as he has got "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As of now, all of the sources present in the article are reliable, so no issues on that front. The book, the magazine article and the french review make for significant coverage that is independent of the subject, as well as the news article from Diário Notícias Madeira. This source[28] does have a very significant intro on the artists preceding the interview. Sources as this[29] or the documentary (both on big public TV channels) do show his relevance on the field of Portuguese hip-hop. The article still requires clean up and some expanding using the provided sources but alas, AFD is not clean up. A WP:BEFORE would have been appreciated, though. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 05:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know how an editor who does not speak Portuguese think they can possibly vet sources here. A source has been added, subject is a veteran on the Portuguese hip-hop scene and meets GNG, it is merely a matter of translating the Portuguese article. This nomination is one of the now retired User:Shadowowl's 239 nominations within a few weeks. Filed within a few minutes of their last edit, I don't think due diligence or any policy-required ATD-considerations were given proper attention. Sam Sailor 08:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the comment above that the referenced was replaced? This was the article version that was nominated https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_the_Kid&oldid=850234823 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DBL Partners

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

A directory-like page on an unremarkable venture capital fund. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/Mokwepa with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability in the article and nothing found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing remarkable or notable. Reads like a PR bio. Kierzek (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with rhythmic train samples

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

Useless list. Possible incomplete, and not sourced. Text in gray box copied from [30]. » Shadowowl | talk 16:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I'm laughing that someone thought this needed an article. Useless, unnecessary, and a poorly written article anyawy. Ultimograph5 (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Poorly written, not sourced, and no reason established why this article is necessary or important. Tillerh11 (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Terribly sourced to Youtube videos, borderline unreadable and incomprehensible. Almost WP:A1 level. Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:LISTN and WP:LISTCRITERIA. Article created by an editor who seems to be a SPA for everything to do with Vulfpeck, the first act named in this list. The worst thing is, this list doesn't even include "Trans-Europe Express", surely the most influential train rhythm song of all (and the one song whose train rhythm origins can actually be reliably verified)... Richard3120 (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I suspect that this topic is fancruft among a small esoteric group of enthusiasts. If someone from that community had a convincing reason for why this list is worthy of an encyclopedia per WP:LISTCRITERIA, I might buy it, but I can figure out no such rationale myself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... Dear god!, Fails every policy on this project, Kill it with fire. –Davey2010^Talk 17:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Keeping this article is a total waste of valuable encyclopedia space. It's original research, poorly sourced and a list based on a totally non-notable topic. Ajf773 (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Macau national under-23 football team

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

No reference proof notability, fails GNG B dash (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't think of a reason why a national under-23 team wouldn't pass GNG. They were involved in qualification stages of the AFC U-23 Championship in 2015 and 2017.[31] An absence of references in the article does not necessarily equate to a lack of available references. Nzd (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nzd. Giant Snowman 08:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep U-23 teams are notable. No reason to think this one is any different. What a waste of time. Smartyllama (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep U-23 teams are notable. Needs expanding not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Meshuggah. I specifically rejected the argument to keep which suggested we could find better sources on the band's own website. That's pretty much the definition of not a WP:RS. There's no reason to delete the history; it may be useful for material to merge. Such a merge is clearly not part of the consensus, but not prohibited either. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Kidman

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

Unreliable sources ; All except 1 (the loudwire article) are unreliable. I cannot access the Loudwire article due to GDPR access prevention. Also contains WP:FLOWERY language like famous and unique while those claims are not sourced. » Shadowowl | talk 16:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have seen the Loudwire article and it does not go into any kind of detail about Kidman's life or career, which would be necessary to satisfy notability requirements. Instead, the article says that Kidman was replaced by a cardboard cutout on tour dates during a period of illness. There are statements from the band and from Kidman, but nothing to establish notability beyond being a member of the band. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think more should be (and could be) included about Jens Kidman's life and career. This article shouldn't necessarily be deleted. Sure, there aren't enough referenced bits of news on his page, but that could be easily fixed. More properly referenced articles about Jens could be found if we look a little harder on the internet or on Meshuggah's official website. Mr. Brain (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article needs improvements. But from what I can tell the singer is notable per WP:GNG. Also per Mr. Brains rationale.BabbaQ (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mr. Brain, BabbaQ, could you please show how he is individually notable apart from the band? Richard3120 (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meshuggah perhaps? on his own, he does not appear to meet GNG. I found a couple of excerpts via google books, but they were all passing mentions as lead singer of Messhuggah. There was one here of a couple of paragraphs, but it was about his voice/the bands treatment of one particular song. No biographical material at all. There is random stuff around, but it all seems to be youtube interviews, or fan wiki stuff, so not much RS. I am assuming the two above editors werent able to find any either, as they didnt post anything, or add any to the article. Curdle (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meshuggah per Curdle. I'm also unable to find anything in independent sources other than trivial mentions specifically related to the band. --bonadea contributions talk 08:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Subject lacks independent notability. Any material worth saving may very well be tranferred over to the band article. Notability is not inherited. It's not passed around band members either. -The Gnome (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kuppathu Raja

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

Only has 1 source, for the soundtrack. All the other information is unsourced. » Shadowowl | talk 16:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete Immortalz

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

Has no reliable sources. » Shadowowl | talk 15:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Real Fighter (2016)

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

Non-notable film with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete completely non notable film. Its been completely refspammed with non RS- They are pretty much all either crowd sourced or aggregated info movie celebrity sites. None of the information is in depth, its all just directory listings. Some of that rubbish has even found its way into the article itself "and cinebee rated 24 out of 100" Cinebee is a crowd sourced site, and precisely two users came up with that score. Curdle (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Le Soir de Tunisie

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

Unsourced article with a spammy youtube link. » Shadowowl | talk 15:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Some sources were presented, but they didn't convince the other reviewers that WP:N was established. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stev´nn Hall

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

There are certainly sources but I do not believe that they are of sufficient quality to establish notability for a visual artist. There is nothing in the article that suggests that he passes WP:Artist either. Nor does a search throw up anything, other than evidence t TheLongTone (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci (✉) 18:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source that is of any use for notability is the Globe and Mail review, and that's just a short review amongst several others. Perhaps the creators.vice.com link is useful, but I can't personally verify that. The Thomas Waugh essay (google books link here) only mentions him in a screen grab and caption. The article's claim that his "satyrical short film 'Bondage Television' deserved broad commentary by the film writer Thomas Waugh in the context of masculine sexual orientation" is not backed up by the cited text itself (nor does it make much sense as a sentence -- Hall's short film deserved more "broad commentary" by "the film writer Thomas Waugh"? Or is Waugh claiming it deserves more broad commentary in general?) Either way, it doesn't seem to appear in the cited text and cannot be verified. If the original author of this Wikipedia article is making some sort of claim about what Waugh has or has not done as a scholar on behalf of Hall, that would be original research and a POV issue. Further searching turns up very little, a few mentions that only confirm Hall as an artist, but nothing that supports WP:GNG (or WP:ARTIST for that matter). freshacconci (✉) 18:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Globe article is good, but it's not enough. Lacks RS to establish GNG.96.127.242.226 (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is far too dependent on blogs and primary sources, and not nearly enough on reliable sources, to deem him notable — but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced much better than this. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This source extensively talks about the artist and the artworks. The translated title is: "The photographer Stev'nn Hall portrayed the painful relationship between the conscious and the unconscious." The article writes "The mixed media artist from Toronto, Canada, Stev'nn Hall, in his series 'Against Himself' makes an atypical approach to how we relate to ourselves. It is extremely difficult to put forward the feelings we repress every day in contrast to the face we show to people close to us. However, it is not possible to deny that those feelings, impulses and intentions are there, present, all the time" and "In what seems to be an exercise in bringing the unconscious to the front, the series shows portraits of different individuals a difficult facet to play. Naked, humiliated, hanged and so on, individuals attack themselves in different ways, questioning what these signs of power made to oneself could mean." (The machine translation is not great, but I think the meaning is decipherable.) The article goes on to say in translation "On the one hand, they could refer to the unconscious impulses that we seek to tame. However, on the other side, it seems that Hall's photographs and montages speak about the complex relationship that the mind has with the body. The physical instances that compel us to put ourselves at the greatest possible risk, feel adrenaline, activate it, being pampered by a physical instantiation that stops us" and "The photographs give free rein to our relationship with our body, our mind and what we love and hate about ourselves. You can see more, below." That last reference is to the ten photographs of the artist's work that are included in this review. Definitely a substantial review. I believe the source is Vice Media. Bus stop (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this extensive review addresses Hall as an artist, especially the dissimilarity as well as the connections between the two styles of work he has produced—photographs of people and photographs of landscapes/seascapes. I think this is a serious review that attempts to probe the significance of the output of the artist. Bus stop (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've added, as an external link, this 2011 interview with Stevnn' Hall which I think is worth everyone's 33 minutes. The seriousness of the artist is apparent and it is informative of the artist's concerns. Bus stop (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator On (3:00 AM/July 19, 2018) I edited the article adding hopefully more comprehensive references and making a few text changes in an attempt to address some of the above comments. Thanks to all intervening participants for their contribution.
Further note to closing administrator On (5:00 PM/July 20, 2018) I edited the article again, making various fixes in attention the above discussion, hoping to improve the article and its chances to be kept. Thank you. Neuralia (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he is not listed in the CHIN (Canadian Heritage Information Network) list of "Artists in Canada", which is a pretty easy way of determining ballpark notability, by seeing if any of the contributing "Twenty-three libraries and art galleries" across Canada have a file on him. If 23 libraries and galleries do not see him as notable enough to start a file, I am not sure why we should. They do have 42,700 other artists listed.96.127.242.226 (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not sure why we should" I think we should. Sources take the artist seriously. Recognition is accorded the artist in the sources available to us. The author, RM Vaughn, focusses on three reviews in this source. The first of the three is that of Stev´nn Hall, and the headline derives from the work of Stev´nn Hall, reading "Electric skyscapes are a kick in the head". That is a reference to the two different styles in which the artist works. This is mentioned in the body of the review. One style involves human figures, in aggressive poses. The other involves landscapes, in which are sometimes found fiery skies. This is not a superficial review. It touches upon not only the significance of the work but the techniques used to bring the work about. This alone could establish notability. This source importantly includes what look to me as ten good quality photographs to represent some of the photographer's work. It characterizes him as a mixed media artist, something our article should mention. Vice Media, the publisher of this review, is a well-regarded source. This is a well-written and thoughtful review. Though not easily quantifiable, that is something we should be looking for, to establish notability. Bus stop (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are just repeating everything you already said in an earlier comment. Please avoid using repetition and walls of text to bludgeon the discussion. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you do notice that Vice Media, which is a good-quality source, includes ten images of this artist's work in this review. Can you dismiss that as simply not sufficient for establishing notability? In my opinion notability is amply satisfied in the instance of this artist. Please tell me your thoughts on this. Bus stop (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing that shows he meets WP:Artist. There are no reviews of exhibitions or gallery openings etc; art blogs may like using the pretty pictures, but noone important seems to have taken notice of him yet. Curdle (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Curdle—this would be a review of an art gallery exhibition. Bus stop (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Cannot locate significant evidence of Wikinotability. On an altogether different issue, I agree with some commentary above insinuating subject's artistic merit. -The Gnome (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The artist has won significant critical attention. Both of the sources that I've commented upon at length constitute "significant critical attention". Could the attention be more significant? Of course. But the above is adequate to establish that this is a serious artist working long-term in a well-defined area who has garnered a modicum of recognition. Wikipedia has standards of notability but when they are met you can't keep demanding more. Our standard should not be understood to only include only stodgy well-accepted artists but also those whose careers are relatively new. When an artist's name is the key factor that makes the artwork good, that artist is already a has-been. On the other hand the artist whose work alone is the key to whatever meager degree of success they have achieved, and whose name is unknown—that would be my idea of a "non-stodgy" artist. We have ample indication in sources that the work of this artist is beginning to open up doors. Both of the above sources are prominent reviews of this emerging artist's work. Our notability standards are not specific as to what degree of prominence is adequate but we can use common sense. On a separate note I can't tell what you are referring to by "some commentary above insinuating subject's artistic merit. What is that a reference to? Do you mean on the part of sources or on the part of editors? Bus stop (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's artistic merit has been insinuated by editors. Namely, you. You see, I may agree that some subject is notable in real life, but this does not mean I automatically believe the subject is also Wikinotable. This encyclopaedia has its own rules. Within which, verifiability through the testimony of reliable sources is a paramount one. And since Wikipedia accepts sources rather than personal testimony, and established sources more than non-established ones, it figures that Wikipedia would be perforce slanted towards more "stodgy well-accepted artists" and fewer artists "whose careers are relatively new." So, Wikipedia will never be the encyclopaedia of (or even a guide for) the Avant-Guarde. I have fully accepted this state of affairs; and you should too, I think, for the sake of your peace of mind. -The Gnome (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I normally welcome chinwags between editors, Bus stop. What I want to avoid, with all due respect, is another waterfall of impassioned and obliterating biblical thunder like the one you unleashed last time. So, I'm engaging here very, very carefully. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Please tell me or show me where I have insinuated the subject's artistic merit, The Gnome. Bus stop (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS—of course, I have not, The Gnome. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ansh 666 20:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close addendum: there was a comment added between the time that I opened the AfD page and closing that I didn't see. While the NC close stands, I'd say it leans closer to consensus that GNG is met, though not all the way there. ansh 666 20:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Trauner

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of tiself, and the expected level of campaign coverage is not an automatic WP:GNG exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL: campaign coverage always exists for all candidates, so a candidate only clears the bar if the sourcing demonstrates him as a special case over and above most other candidates. But that's not what the sourcing does here, and he has no credible claim of preexisting notability for other reasons. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There's quite a few references here, this isn't this guy's first political rodeo, seems to be enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Active candidates and local politicians are not inherently notable, but such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" per WP:POLITICIAN. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 16:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it doesn't matter if it's his first rodeo or his tenth — it matters whether he won a rodeo or not. Every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign-related coverage — if all a candidate had to show to be deemed notable was that some campaign coverage existed, there would never be any such thing as a non-notable candidate. To be deemed as passing GNG in lieu of failing NPOL, a candidate does not just have to show a handful of campaign coverage — he has to be able to show that his campaign coverage exploded so far beyond what every other candidate could also show that he's got a credible claim to being a special case. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see what the rest of the community says; there's a reason why I voted "weak." PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perennial candidates can be notable, even though by definition they do not win. I haven't yet made up my mind about this candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would take a lot more than just WP:ROUTINE local coverage to make a perennial candidate notable. Lyndon LaRouche, sure. John Turmel, yeah. But not every single person who can simply claim to be a perennial candidate. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any independent notability other than his candidacy from the references in the article. SportingFlyer talk 21:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is always coverage of a candidate for public office. That alone is not a sign of notability. We have deliberately decided that every candidate for the US congress is not notable. Nothing short of every candidate for US congress being notable would make Trauner notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Gary Trauner is well known in Wyoming and national political circles, and nearly won election to the U.S. House by less than a percentage point in what was nearly a major D upset, even in 2006. He's still a prominent figure in the DC state and Wyoming politics. Scanlan (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The number of votes a person got in the process of not winning the election is not a notability claim in and of itself. Either he wins the election or the election is irrelevant to his notability or lack thereof. And just asserting that somebody is well known in national politics isn't a freebie that exempts you from having to show and source the fact as true — but none of the sourcing or substance here demonstrates that at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - he's becoming close to a perennial candidate. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a perennial candidate is not an automatic notability freebie either, in the absence of much more than just local attention. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has met GNG through independent media coverage, and this article has 26 citations. There is enough info for this to be considered a full article, and not a stub.Narayansg (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might need to recount those citations with an eye to the fact that some of them are primary sources that can't assist notability, and virtually all of the rest are the WP:ROUTINE local coverage that every candidate in every election could always show. Nothing in the range or volume of sourcing makes him special at all — every candidate everywhere could always show every bit as much sourcing as this. Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The difficulty with perennial candidates (or near perennial candidates) is that there is not a great place to redirect the article to. Our usual outcome for members running for Congress is a redirect to the appropriate election page - in this case, there are three possible redirect targets. --Enos733 (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in Wyoming, 2018. He is not known outside of the Wyoming region / Not a national figure. Redditaddict69 (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)Redditaddict69[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus so far, is redirecting a good solution?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the content of the article and references, Trauner passes WP:GNG - there's a range of substantial coverage in reliable sources over several years, and he has held elected positions in a school district and water and sewer district (this article confirms that those are elected positions). This is more than just routine coverage of a candidate for a particular race. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Probably fails NPOL and is a perennial candidate, so nowhere really to redirect to. However, I think I am seeing just enough in the way of sourcing for GNG to be met, albeit barely. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merged into Marion Section by creator. ansh 666 23:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bombay, Jersey City

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

Doesn't appear to be a valid name for the neighborhood. None of the references use the term Bombay, New Jersey Google maps doesn't recognize it, and a google search ends up pointing only to Wikipedia articles. I prod-ed the article but that was removed with the comment "It's now a valid neighborhood" but without any sources that confirm that. regentspark (comment) 13:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Google is a good search engine, but neither Google (nor any other) search engine nor Google Maps is always up to date. The fact is that Bombay is now a valid unincorporated and loosely defined Jersey City neighborhood, to which the article's multiple editors have already attested consensus. That consensus itself meets the article's Wikipedia standard for being. Castncoot (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A core Wikipedia standard is WP:Verifiability as proven by reliable sources, not the assertions of two Wikipedia editors. The article's references don't support the concept of "Bombay" as neighborhood in Jersey City. And it is not for Wikipedia to push that concept on the world without proof of notability. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not two, but three editors, all independent, and all with robust New Jersey topic experience. If someone without New Jersey topic experience has a problem with a particular statement, then the appropriate action would be to place a citation needed tag onto that statement - that is the usual Wikipedia protocol - not to request wiping out an entire article due to their own topical inexperience. Castncoot (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into this enough to vote on it yet, but this sounds like a WP:OR issue. I could attest to a lot of things about my own community and institutions within it, but without reliable sources to back it up, it can't be included in the encyclopedia. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 11:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There already are plenty of reliable sources quoted. This article falls under the same format as other short articles, no different. The other primary editors including the creator should also be informed of this discussion. Castncoot (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of these "reliable sources" state that the neighborhood is known as "Bombay". Re your claims about New Jersey experience, please note that Wikipedia is not a "crowd sourced" encyclopedia but rather is a reliably sourced encyclopedia.--regentspark (comment) 21:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the articles I've seen reference the neighborhood directly or indirectly, and I can't find any sources on my own which reference it in a WP:BEFORE search. I can't find any reliable sources which show it's an actual defined neighborhood. SportingFlyer talk 21:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:GEOLAND. The references do not list this neighborhood by name, and while I am seeing references to it at DuckDuckGo, nothing is jumping out at me to indicate that this is notable. There are mentions of the Indian-American population of Jersey City, but that's nothing that can't be covered in the city's own article. Actually, while we can't use it as a WP:RS, I do see a YouTube video with a description saying that this is the same as India Square, in which case this would be a duplicate article. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

India Square is a part of Bombay, they are not one and the same. The creator of the article User:Irehdna should be informed of this discussion and given a chance to express their viewpoint. Castncoot (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to sound blunt, but why don't you be bold and take care of that yourself? No worries, I will put the template on their talk page (not that you really have to use a template if you don't know how to do that, it's just easier that way). I'm not trying to come across as mean, it's just what you are asking is not hard to do and I'm trying to make sure you are aware of that. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 00:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they were already notified here. Have a blessed day. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 00:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they've been on a Wikibreak since May 31st, 2018. Let's give them a chance to return to Wikipedia first. Castncoot (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source (from the India Square article) that Little India is located in the Jersey City neighborhood of "Little Bombay." Kiniry, Laura. "Moon Handbooks New Jersey", Avalon Travel Publishing, 2006. pg. 34 ISBN 1-56691-949-5. Retrieved April 11, 2015 Irehdna (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That, at best, merits a line in the India Square article (with the qualified term "Little Bombay"). Not the creation of a new neighborhood "Bombay, NJ". (Using a better source than a travel guide, which are not generally considered reliable.)--regentspark (comment) 02:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's where we beg to differ. They are two different entities. India Square is simply the center of Bombay, or New Bombay, or Little Bombay, as people in the area are referring to the encompassing neighborhood these days. Each entity is entitled to its article with reliable sources, and travel guides are not barred as WP:RS. Castncoot (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now it's reliably sourced, with an ISBN number. Thanks to User:Irehdna for pointing this out. Castncoot (talk) 05:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also to User:Tinton5 for appropriately making the correct move from "Bombay, NJ" to "Bombay, Jersey City". That's the other point that User:RegentsPark appears to be missing. Castncoot (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Castncoot, could you please give the exact text from the source that mentions Little Bombay that clarifies where the boundaries of this neighborhood are? Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 20:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment about wikibreaks, depending on the user's preferences, they may receive an email every time someone edits their talk page. Regardless, we can't keep the AfD open just to wait for someone to return from wikibreak. The creator does not own the article. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 01:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mergeto India Square, does not require separate article.Djflem (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike British neighborhoods, many U.S. neighborhoods, especially within major cities, do not in fact have boundaries. New York City is a prime example of that. One might say they're in either Forest Hills or in Rego Park in Queens, and they wouldn't necessarily be wrong either way. One might also say they're in Kips Bay or in Rose Hill in Manhattan, and they wouldn't necessarily be wrong either way. But note that each of these has a separate Wikipedia page. In the U.S., unincorporated neighborhoods in major cities are often (though not always) loosely and culturally defined. The salient point for Wikipedia is notability. The source succinctly and reliably states that Little India (India Square) lies within the Jersey City neighborhood of Little Bombay. In other words, India Square is a micro-neighborhood within the macro-neighborhood of Bombay, Jersey City, which Wikipage is only two months old and needs time to develop, but in fact was vetted, reviewed, and even moved from Bombay, New Jersey to Bombay, Jersey City. Also note that the West Village is a micro-neighborhood within the macro-neighborhood of Greenwich Village, both in turn within Manhattan, but neither the West Village nor Greenwich Village has clearly defined boundaries - they are more loosely and culturally defined. Castncoot (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way User:Irehdna, is it valid to say that your iVote is Keep? Castncoot (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, all iVotes will need to take into consideration the newly sourced page. Castncoot (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{ping}Castncoot}}, it would be helpful if you would provide the exact quote from the source so that we can make an informed judgement. For your Manhattan examples above, we have plenty of sources while there does seem to be a paucity of sources for Little Bombay (and none, if I may say, for Bombay) so a full quotation would be helpful. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 23:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If one prefers a merge to Marion Section instead of India Square would be more appropriate since the area includes the parts of the Journal Square district just north of the square itself and most of the area west of it, including Newark Avenue.Djflem (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think a reference to "Little Bombay" is probably ok since a google search [32] throws up articles that use that term synonymously with India Square, even though none qualify as RS (and I still haven't seen the actual text from the Moon guide). However, Bombay seems totally egregious and made up to me and should not appear anywhere on Wikipedia. At best, a line in India Square along the lines of sometimes called "Little India" or "Little Bombay" may be appropriate. --regentspark (comment) 13:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is where topic experience is critical, User:RegentsPark. The *fact* is that, as User:Irehdna pointed out, India Square lies within Bombay/New Bombay/Little Bombay. To complicate things further, as User:Djflem has validly pointed out, the loosely defined Bombay neighborhood has now also sprawled over into the Marion Section of Jersey City as well. So RegentsPark's proposal is not acceptable (because it's now factually incorrect), even if it may have had validity as recently as ten years ago. India Square connotes the commercial center of Bombay/New Bombay/Little Bombay, which in turn represents more of a cultural zone encompassing both India Square and the Journal Square areas. We cannot be telling Wikipedia readers that 2+2=5. I believe that the correct solution here is to develop this article properly to reflect these intricacies as well as vagaries. The way I see it, deleting an article is simply a copout as a way to avoid necessary work. Castncoot (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that's true, but I haven't seen a single source which supports that assertion, and undefined neighborhoods are held to the WP:GNG standard per WP:GEOLAND. In the absence of any reliable sources this is a clear delete or merge. SportingFlyer talk 04:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. @Castncoot: you need to find reliable sources for your assertions otherwise we, i.e., Wikipedia, will be creating new neighborhoods out of nothing (once again, we are not a crowd sourced site). Reliable sourcing is a core policy for a very good reason and no sources for Bombay exist. Little Bombay does seem to be used as an alternative name for India Square, though you still haven't provided the text of that source, so that can be stated in the India Square article. But creating an article on Bombay, New Jersey (or Jersey City) merely on the basis of "topic experience" is not acceptable. --regentspark (comment) 22:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What Djflem is pointing out is that this article should be redirected to India Square or Marion Section, of which India Square is part with the proper citation in the article as opposed to creating new articles such a Koreatown, Palisades and Koreatown, Fort Lee, which give a name that is not really in use to communities large concentrations of an ethnic group, but rather use existing names and article and expand on those. That's the work.Djflem (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK User:Djflem, I can agree to merging this article into Marion Section. Castncoot (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---> Done. Castncoot (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Marion Section or India Square as the name "Bombay" to refer to the neighborhood isn't baked by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina gubernatorial election, 2022

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a state gubernatorial election that's more than four years away as of today -- there's literally nothing of substance to say about this yet except that it's going to happen, and the only source being cited here is an unreliable blog entry about the incumbent governor predicting that he'll serve for at least ten years, not reliable or notability-supporting media coverage of the 2022 election as a thing that anybody's paying attention to yet. No prejudice against recreation in 2021 or 2022 when things are actually happening for an article to talk about, but there's simply no reason or need for this to already exist today. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per both WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Only one unreliable source cited. Incumbent is not even officially known and won't be until November. Having this article before then is pure speculation. Tillerh11 (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And even then, the incumbent could still resign or die, or choose not to run again sometime in the next four years, or try to run again in 2022 but lose the primary. So even if he wins this fall, that still doesn't constitute a guarantee that he'll actually still be the Republican candidate in 2022. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Usually we don't have articles on the election after next. Number 5 7 19:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Four years out is an eternity in politics and it's an article based on just two presumed candidates. We don't yet have the results of the 2018 election. We are an encyclopedia and new articles should have sufficient content to provide useful information. Blue Riband► 02:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is no different than having a presidential election page four years in advance. Come on, people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.171.38 (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelwood services

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

Simple trivia, primary sources only. -- DexterPointy (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Am I missing something here? Am I overlooking some kind of historical significance or something? It looks like it's just a run-of-the-mill truck stop. It fails WP:ORGCRIT. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article does not establish any kind of notability and is not well sourced. Tillerh11 (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTDIR and WP:GNG. This is hardly a major shopping complex, it's a service station with a few shops attached. Ajf773 (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough to have an article and what is here is tending towards trivia. Dunarc (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to M5 motorway; it's a valid topic and there's verifiable information that a red link or redirect to the current version of the target article would not provide. Peter James (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill service area. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Would prefer to merge into one huge article but as one doesn't exist I guess the only option is deletion, Anyway non notable service station, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See WP:ROADOUTCOMES, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination). This issue has been discussed extensively in the past and has been decided to keep all British motorway service areas. They are established by statute and are major complexes. They are not just "truck stops". It is not productive to delete a single example, when there are articles for all of them. See Category:Motorway service areas (United Kingdom). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ROADOUTCOMES is an essay, not policy. We should not automatically assume that because something is "generally notable" in an essay topic that it is inherently notable in Wikipedia policy. Who also made the decision that service areas in Britain (but no other country) were generally notable? If it was on the basis of an outcome of a mass AfD (which was always going to end up as a trainwreck) then the fallback should consider reliable sources if there are any. Shopping centres covering a larger area and a greater number of facilities aren't always notable and I don't see why smaller services areas should have a higher status. Ajf773 (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT (does not fail WP:NOTGUIDE, though.) Of the AfDs cited above as precedent, one is from 2006 when notability was different, and the other was a trainwreck, so precedent isn't clear. Roadoutcomes mentions the UK is different than the rest of the world, but again, it's not policy - this one fails WP:GNG at the moment and I can't understand why you'd have a keep for the UK. SportingFlyer talk 04:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the ROADOUTCOMES was added here, based on the result of the Norton Canes services AfD, and seems to have sailed by for awhile: 16:01, September 6, 2009‎ Jeni (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,859 bytes) (+157)‎ . . (Added per WP:Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination) and previous AfDs. I have no issues discussing if this is considered a controversial addition. (WP:BRD)) (undo | thank) SportingFlyer talk 04:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. While there are only a few flakes of snow here, it's fairly clear that the notability just isn't here and waiting out the remaining days would only bring the same result. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fire and Spice

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

This book does not meet notability criteria. There is very little third-party coverage and the article was created by a user found to be a sockpuppet. Manzarene (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Strong Delete ~~under G11;~~ no established WP:N and created by a known spammer. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Edit: After reviewing G11, I would agree it's not G11 material, but it still should be deleted. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete per WP:G11.~~ Delete. Not notable. Absolutely no reliable sources. Just look at the author's entry (User:Westripwow) in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WilliamMartin91/Archive to confirm intent. Newslinger (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable author and no significant coverage of the book itself. Note: Speedy deletion criterion G11 does not apply since the text of the article is clearly neutral in tone. Regards So Why 16:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We R Friends

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

Non-notable film, no coverage or significant reviews. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete on this one. I tend to lean on the inclusionist side, but reviewing Wikipedia:Notability (films), this one doesn't seem to quite cut the mustard for notability; India is a film-producing nation, but there is no significant coverage of the topic, and the article itself doesn't do a good job establishing WP:N. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bowral High School

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

This article does not cite sources and heavily relies on (what appears to be) original research. Therefore, I believe it does not meet the Wikipedia standards. ❂string DTD❂ 10:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, tag with {{unreferenced}}, and work on improving it. It does indeed meet WP:V per DuckDuckGo. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES now specifically states that secondary schools "are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist" and "WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" following a RfC. Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOTPAPER This article has been around since 2008. To be swift and to the point, what is the point of even contributing to Wikipedia if essentially a no-consensus vote (the RFC in question) puts hours worth of work on the chopping block? I wouldn't. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable school in Bowral. There are two major schools: Bowral Public School (K-6) and Bowral High School (7-12). Here's a listing from Highland NSW official website [33] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is suggesting that the school doesn't exist, and that is not an official website. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - D'oh, community website. Anyway there should be news articles about the schools. Here's some about their art students showing in Art Express [34] There's also a famous cricketer Don Bradman who went to Bowral High back when it was just a secondary school and before they established the new location in 1929/1930; he scored his first century at age 12 while at the school; sourced by multiple books and news articles [35]. [36] Also MP Jai Rowell is an alum there. [37] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a high school. No reason to think that with local and hard copy searches sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such articles. Just Chilling (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill small town high school. The above editors seem unaware that secondary schools are no longer considered automatically notable following a large scale RFC: I'd encourage them to re-read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you, that's the point I was trying to make. The school does not seem notable at all. It seems like it it just a school at a very small town and not notable (basing off that the article is unreferenced at all. ❂stringDTD❂ 02:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it's just a concern about very small town, then you can redirect to Bowral until more details are written up beyond the paragraphs or so that describe the school systems back then. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Details are now added. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trove news archive about new high school:

Dated 1928 back when it was still Bowral Intermediate High School [38]
Visit by Lord Chelmsford in 1921 to the Bowral District School [39]
1925 plans to erect new high school [40]
1927 construction plans [41]
1928 enlargement of high school site [42]
1929 foundation stone scheduled [43] laid [44] picture [45]
1929 building in progress [46]
1929 cost of high school $25,000 and description of building [47]
1930 announcement that school has been classified raised to second class [48]
1930 Official opening news article [49] [50] [51]
1930 Speech Day and progress report by headmaster on class enrollment figures, erection of tennis courts, successes on the leaving exams - this is fairly significant coverage near the founding date of the facility [52]
1930 Captains and Prefects named [53], Sports records created for school [54], 1931 scholarships for graduates [55]
1935 PCA meeting for more courses (lists some courses that were present back in the days) [56]
1935 death of headmaster Cowie [57]
1937 Headmaster AD Watson (2nd headmaster of school) leaves [58]

The list goes on through other years but the stuff around 1930 is most pertinent as significant coverage by news sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some nim-come-poop (not directed at anyone in particular) is probably going to come along and say but, but, but, that's all local coverage and there's nothing special about this place! and to that I challenge them to take a random sample of 50 articles from each of these categories: Category:Public high schools in California, Category:Cities in Florida, and Category:Prisons in Texas. How many of them are run-of-the-mill subjects that just barely meet WP:GNG (or, perhaps in you opinion, don't meet WP:GNG at all)? WP:OTHERSTUFF? Read over that argument closely before you cite it. The argument here isn't that one, two, ten, or even one hundred articles exist, the point is three quarters or more of Wikipedia content exists. If we nuke all of it, it won't just be Wikipedians noticing and talking about the mass removal of pages about little towns, moderately sized cities, schools, hospitals, etc. I point back to WP:NOTPAPER, and also to WP:IAR. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 11:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are more than enough sources cited here to show notability. The last RfC on school notability said virtually nothing...even its proposer disavowed it in his RfA. All it said was you couldn't claim OUTCOMES alone as a reason to keep. However, that too has been completely ignored. Guidelines here are dictated by the community, not some bureaucratic action like an RfC. Forever, the notability of secondary schools has been weighed against a standard much closer to WP:PLACE than WP:ORG. We have an RfC roughly every two years on this subject, and no matter the outcome, the standard at AfD remains most accurately reflected by WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. In short, actions speak much louder than words. John from Idegon (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it meets all 10 of my standards for high schools. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. —Doncram (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not per SCHOOLOUTCOMES which is now considered an invalid reason, But Keep per the sources in the article which to me confirms the schools notability, IMHO meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, not sure why some editors above are referring to Bowral as "very small town", this is subjective and irrelevant to afd discussions, anyway, at 12,949 it is in the top 100 towns/cities by population in Australia, so it is not (Yoo Hoo, Go Bowral!:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For a "small town high school", it sure has significant coverage in multiple newspapers: Sydney Morning Herald, The Southern Mail (Bowral), The Robertson Advocate, The Scrutineer and Berrima District Press, The Labor Daily AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mundhum Trek

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

No references, no evidence of notability, WP:BEFORE doesn't turn up anything Melcous (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 13:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 13:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs offered or that I could find (in English) to support existence, let alone notability. It is not clear what this is meant to be, either. Public parkland? A marked trail? Someone's idea of a good hiking route? Happy to revisit if reliable sources can be found in Nepali or English. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:V. I would be willing to reconsider if reliable sources are presented. However, as written, and the lack of verifiability aside, it is unclear how the subject is notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An unreferenced article written in a non-encyclopaedic tone. No evidence of attained notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katy (series)

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

The article is an overview of a series of entries, of which only 2 have articles. In addition it has almost no information and has been like that since it was created in 2009. Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "What Katy Did" is a fairly well-known children's book, and having this article may help people to navigate around other books in the series. Just because books in the series do not have entries in Wikipedia now does not mean that they will not have articles in the future. Vorbee (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does having this article help to navigate? What Katy Did#Adaptations and What Katy Did#Sequels has more information than this article does. Also, while the a book is notable, the article in question has not proved that the "franchise" is, nor that the common name is "Katy". Now I'm not against this page existing, but currently, it has no information in it, not even about the 2 blue links that do exist (and has seen almost no updates since 2009 except for Wikipedia maintenance. --Gonnym (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to What Katy Did. I don't see enough notability as a series but it's possible if additional books or adaptations come out, the series article could be relevant. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Scholar search (Katy Susan Coolidge) quickly reveals one book chapter [59] (as well as the name of the book being an homage) and a paper in a journal [60]. What Katy Did is included in Masterplots II: Juvenile & Young Adult Fiction Series. The author is cited in Guide to Literary Masters & Their Works primarily for this series. Seems to pass WP:BKCRIT criteria 1 with ease. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Girls' Series Fiction and American Popular Culture also seems to examine the series a whole as does this journal article (though I am unable to access this beyond a snippet). Some preliminary searching also suggests that What Katy Did at School and In the High Valley could also be notable enough to have pages, which if the majority of the series itself is individually notable would also suggest the series as a whole is too. In interests of disclosure the book chapter and journal article I posted above do seem to focus more on What Katy Did rather than the series as a whole. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Additional context helped clear up lack of results. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solo 1954/Piano Solo

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. No indication in the course of searching that the album was notable on its own merit. WP:NOTINHERITED Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 21:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thelonious Monk - Criteria at WP:NALBUM not met. Zingarese talk · contribs 02:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Keep With Hobbes Goodyear's listed sources, the recording demonstrably meets WP:NALBUM. It will need serious cleanup and expansion, however. Zingarese talk · contribs 20:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Finding refs is hampered because this material has been re-released under a variety of titles, and because much potentially valuable periodical and book coverage is not visible online. Still, there is enough to make the case: AllMusic review, New Yorker review by Richard Brody, an item on the 2017 re-release in Le Monde, a review in the French magazine Télérama, a review in The Independent, 8/10 rating from Scott Yanow in his book Bebop, a brief description from NPR of the concert, and a much lengthier description by the jazz producer and writer Raymond Horrocks, who attended the concert. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly an article in need of expansion beyond a track list, not least to take account of its multiple editions (I have this as GNP9008, licensed from Vogue by GNP Crescendo in 1972 and unhelpfully entitled just "Thelonious Monk"). But noting especially the New Yorker item identified by Hobbes Goodyear ("Thelonious Monk’s first and, to my ears, greatest solo piano session"), I think there is enough for notability. AllyD (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing as keep. Appreciate the additional context from those more familiar with the subject. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other Goddess Circle

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

Unable to find sufficient independent, secondary sources to establish notability under WP:NORG Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No need delete it. There is Expert opinion of the Expert Council of the Ministry of Justice for the Altai Republic, the very independent government source. From articles on new religious movements or, for example, living people, one should not require references to dictionaries, etc. Another genre. And the subject is actual for Wikipedia. DayakSibiriak (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC) — DayakSibiriak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Fails WP:NORG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - With Goddess Circle. Not enough original, English language sources to justify its own page, and most of the content there is original research or unsourced.Bangabandhu (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - three editors have made comments - under no circumstance should an afd of this type be closed with so few comments - a case of where even more time has to be allowed for comment - inadequate depth of comment it is not a SNOW and thus should be kept open until further comments arrive JarrahTree 00:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NORG. The only source not connected with the subject is a primary document.Curdle (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. As with many school AfDs, the arguments come down to, Lack of independent sources vs, But we keep schools. It's also possible we're looking at a biased sampling of sources because Indian schools tend to not have as much on-line coverage as US schools. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National English School, Kolkata

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

I personally am unable to decipher what is going on with this page...is it about National English School or abt Mangalam Vidya Niketan. That being said none of the subjects have any coverage in reliable sources — F R ⁺ 14:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the text pertaining to Mangalam Vidya Niketan and restored a stub for the school. That is a completely different school and some editors had hijacked the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and develop The article now refers to the secondary school group as well as a teaching college. I've found one secondary article about the college establishment so far. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a random article about a fight at the school. [61] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. General consensus has long been that verifiable secondary schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a verified high school; sourcing is sufficient for a stub. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a verified high school. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking significant coverage in independent sources, and hence failing WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, a redirect to Baguiati would work as an alternative to deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of truly independent sources. The Banner talk 23:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable Senior Secondary Indian school. WP:GNG does not count here as per WP:BIAS.--DBig Xray 19:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know every article is judged on its own merits. To my opinion, the keeping of school articles that can not prove their own notability, is a systematic bias towards schools... The Banner talk 23:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So Just Chilling, you want to make a point that you have more "experience" in this subject area than a person who lives in Calcutta itself ? Just FYI, all major dallies be it Bengali, English, etc native to this metropolitan region, have a strong presence on the internet itself. The only two sources found up-till now lack even the depth needed for a decent DYK criteria article. The first from Times of India Nie reads like a press release, the second is MILL coverage about two kids getting into fight that turned ugly. If you are such a firm believer in with enough research, sources can invariably be found, I ask you to get your hands dirty and instead of passing comments on my inability to do a through WP:BEFORE , try and find some of those excellent source you have mentioned above. If you however cannot I would request you to refactor your comment to reflect the same Thanks. — F R ⁺ 18:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article lacks notability and proper references. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We keep high schools. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

....even though the article cannot even pass the lower threshold of WP:GNG ? Please read this page [[62]] as a explanation of why your logic is flawed. — F R ⁺ 02:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. About 90% of the time even in the most recent year we have kept verifiable high schools, on the basis that they form a reasonable exception-and the purpose for making them an exception is not just thatthey usually can be sourced with enough effort, and make suitable articles for beginners, but even more important, to avoid the potential thousands of debates such as this, which will , based on experience, come out essentially random. There's avirtue in consistency; there's a virtue in not making decisions that have no basis except the people who happen to show up for the discussion and how much effort they want to devote to the argument. (and when the argument, as here, seems to rely on personal knowledge that it is or is not important in its community, that's all the mroe reason. The claim that a person from the city doesn't think them notable and should therefore have the last word can be used to keep or delete almost anything.--its a classic IDONTLIKEIT/IDOLIKEIT argument. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, does not meet GNG. Dearth of independent sources. Curdle (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calling all bystanders : Someone's trying to delete an article about a school!.. I kid you not!.. Come and join in the fun. -The Gnome (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saffron Henderson

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR maybe redirect to her father's page Dom from Paris (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Voice actors are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie just because they've had roles — the notability test is not the having of roles per se, but the depth and range and breadth of reliable source coverage that they did or did not receive for having roles. But a profile in an IMDb-like directory of voice actors is not a reliable or notability-assisting source. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and WP:TROUT nominator:~~ ~~Oppose bad-faith nomination:~~ Speedy keep: WP:BEFORE was not followed here. I found and added links to two interviews, on top of the existing one, within a few minutes whilst having no previous involvement with the article. WP:GNG is now definitely passed (though the article needs significant improvement). Modernponderer (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These WP:INTERVIEWS are primary sources so of very little use in showing notability. GNG requires in depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. One of the interviews in what seems to be a defunct blog was conducted by another voice actor who worked on the same animation films as she did so unlikely to be independent. If you have any sources that actually support notability I'd be happy to self trout but those do not made the grade by a long chalk. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your own link explains that it's a matter of controversy as to whether interviews are primary or secondary. I'd also add that one of the links in your original nomination, WP:NACTOR, contradicts said nomination as well: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

Given these facts, as well as the depth of coverage in said interviews, my trout here is only strengthened. Modernponderer (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "in a nutshell" part at the top of the page explains it better than I can. Interviews generally count as primary sources, but commentary added to interviews by a publication can sometimes count as secondary-source material. Interviews may be published in reliable publications, but that does not make primary source material contained in them acceptable to cite claims for which Wikipedia requires secondary sources.. Hope that helps. Also repeated use of the meme trout can make you look a little silly if there are other users, especially very experienced ones that have !voted delete. I don't know if it's supposed to be funny or rude. Better to use it sparingly or the joke wears thin and starts to become rude. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You claim you're a very experienced user, yet you haven't even mentioned the banner right above it that clearly states that the page is NOT a policy or guideline.

Also I don't see anyone else commenting here after me, so I'm not sure what "other users" you are referring to. I only see a single other comment made before my arguments and expansion of the article. Modernponderer (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PERESSAY but of course essays do not have the same weight as policy and guidelines but they do help in deletion arguments. If you want to find a policy that backs up this essay try WP:NOR which says in the footnotes Further examples of primary sources include...interviews and WP:N says "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.. Hope that helps. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that "proper" secondary sources should be preferred wherever possible. I cannot agree with the notion that articles should be outright deleted because only sources of a slightly lesser calibre (still reliable and independent) have been found. Modernponderer (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

if you step back and think about what you are saying you are basically advocating using primary sources to show notability when secondary ones don't exist which is against policy and guidelines. Anyway we will have to agree to disagree no point in taking this discussion further. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you don't get to just end the discussion after misrepresenting both my statements and policy. Nowhere have I agreed, nor is it clearly stated, that interviews are purely primary sources (your ~~sneaky~~ incomplete excerpt from WP:NOR notwithstanding). THAT is the real bottom line here, and now this debate can end I suppose. Modernponderer (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews, a class of source that represents the subject speaking about herself rather than being spoken about by other people, are NOT notability-clinching sources in and of themselves. They can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by stronger sources, but they do not confer a pass of GNG in and of themselves if they are the strongest sources on offer. So no, the nominator is not getting trouted for this. Bearcat (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I've removed the trout. But not for the reasons both of you are claiming – rather, it's pretty obvious from the extended discussion that this nomination was made in bad faith, and that you are supporting this as a fellow deletionist no matter what.

If either of you wants to have your arguments taken seriously you might want to cite policies and guidelines (NOT essays) that support your exact point of view, as opposed to some variation of it. Modernponderer (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not anybody's "fellow deletionist". I am an editor with a correct understanding of how Wikipedia's inclusion rules work, which is that nobody in any field of occupation ever gets a notability freebie just for existing if their notability claim is not reliably sourceable to substantive WP:GNG-eligible media coverage about them. We're an encyclopedia, not a free directory of everybody who exists and has a job — articles get kept or deleted on the basis of whether they properly demonstrate that the subject passes defined notability and sourceability standards, not on the basis of some mythical deletionism vs. inclusionism war. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionism vs. inclusionism is not mythical – it is a fundamental, ideological disagreement that is pervasive on Wikipedia. But there is little point in continuing this discussion until such time as one of you has provided the requisite direct policy quotation(s), and not just your opinion of what notability means here. Modernponderer (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, yes it is mythical, because it's not an accurate reflection of what actually happens on Wikipedia. There is no "deletionist" faction that believes in marauding through fields of solid articles to kill them just because they subscribe to some imaginary ideology of deleting stuff for the sake of deleting stuff, for starters — stuff gets deleted for valid reasons, such as non-compliance with our inclusion and sourcing rules, and not just because somebody who likes deleting good stuff for shits and giggles kidnapped it. Sure, some people want our inclusion standards loosened up to the point where everybody and everything that exists at all is entitled to have an article that can never be deleted for any reason — but having no inclusion standards is not a viable approach to building an encyclopedia. Lines have to be drawn somewhere between what is or is not appropriate for inclusion here — but while there may be some disagreement about where those lines should be drawn in some cases, that is not the same thing as what people mean when they talk about "inclusionism vs. deletionism", because again, there is no such thing as any group on Wikipedia that believes in tearing down good stuff just because a delete function exists.

Secondly, please read up on why "that's only an essay" is not a valid argument in an AFD discussion: note, in particular, the part where it explicitly states that "we have policies which tell us what to do and why to do it, and guidelines to help us with how to do it." Notability standards and reliable sourcing rules are not less binding just because they're spelled out in guideline essays rather than formal policy statements: they exists as clarifiers of how policy plays out in practice, and thus are equally binding in the absence of a compelling reason why a special exception to them would be warranted.

The bottom line is, this is how Wikipedia works: the baseline for inclusion is that the person has a strong and credible notability claim, backed up by a WP:GNG-satisfying volume of reliable source coverage about her to verify that the notability claim and the article content are actually true. Both of those conditions have to be met, because if reliable sources were not necessary as long as something that sounds notable was asserted, then people would be able to get into Wikipedia by self-declaring themselves as the presidents of unrecognized micronations, or by claiming to have had charting hits as a musician that they didn't really have, and on and so forth — and if a notability claim weren't necessary as long as any form of sourcing whatsoever was present, then people could game our rules by getting their friends to conduct fake "interviews" with them on YouTube or by self-creating their own "coverage" on a crowdsourced "citizen journalism" website. So Wikipedia has rules about what counts as a valid notability claim, and what types of sources are acceptable support for it, for the purposes of making a person eligible to have a Wikipedia article — because as a platform that people regularly try to use and abuse for publicity, we have to have and enforce standards of notability and sourcing if we want to hold the line on being an encyclopedia instead of just a social networking site. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of taking my advice, you posted a long rant. Nevertheless, I will address a few of your points, if only to deter others from believing in this nonsense.

It is to the obvious advantage of the deletionist faction to claim it does not exist. If the amount of salvageable encyclopedic content lost this way were ever recognized, there would be protests throughout Wikipedia, swiftly followed by administrator action.
The reason the claim "it's only an essay" is 100% valid is because essays do NOT represent consensus. There is no requirement, in fact, for them to represent anything more than the individual opinion of ONE editor. It is not remotely uncommon for essays to outright contradict established policy (and though some of these are userfied, not all are)! If such an editor participated in a discussion like this, their opinion would be weighed as but one !vote – yet because they wrote an "essay", it is suddenly worth much more?
Finally, and this is the real issue that destroys the case for deletion of this page: these interviews are from reliable and independent sources. You have tried to conflate them with hypothetical "interviews conducted by friends" and "citizen journalism", knowing full well that this is not the case here.

So please: either post the direct quotation(s) from policy that support your side, or WP:DROPTHESTICK. Modernponderer (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of "salvageable" encyclopedic content that gets deleted in a year adds up to a molehill next to the Mount Everest of garbage that gets correctly deleted for not meeting our requirements at all. And since deletion does not prevent somebody from recreating an article again if they can do a better job than the first version did, that molehill amounts to a non-existent problem — it is not our job to keep a badly written and badly sourced article just because improvement might be possible, it is the job of the person who wants the article to exist to make it good enough to get kept in the first place.
Wikipedia guidelines do represent consensus, and do not represent the individual opinions of just one person. User essays can be individual opinions, and as such do not carry much weight in policy and procedure discussions — but formal Wikipedia guideline essays, which are not the same thing as user essays, do represent the weight of consensus.
It doesn't matter what type of source the interview appears in — the issue with interviews is the question of who's doing the speaking. People do not get over a Wikipedia inclusion guideline by talking about themselves — for a source to count toward getting a person over GNG, it has to represent other people who are not Saffron Henderson talking about her in the third person. Sources in which Saffron Henderson is talking about herself in the first person can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by third person sourcing, but do not carry a GNG pass in and of themselves if they're the best sources on offer. To assist passage of GNG, a source must be written in the third person by somebody other than the subject herself. (And no, the fact that somebody else transcribed her words in the process of laying out the article does not cover that off — because it's still her own words being transcribed.)
You have already been pointed to all of the policy and guideline documents necessary to demonstrate that every word I have written in this discussion is one hundred per cent correct. Again, guidelines are not the same thing as user essays: guidelines do not represent individual opinions, but rather do represent the weight of established Wikipedia consensus. Notability has to be covered off by reliable sourcing, that's not even up for debate here. But interviews are not notability-assisting sources, because they represent the subject talking about herself — they are fine as verifiers of additional fact after notability has already been covered off by the more correct class of sourcing, but they do not make notability in and of themselves if they're the only class of sourcing being used. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Bearcat so patiently points out this essay explains the policy and guidelines that says 1/ secondary sources are needed and 2/why interviews are not secondary sources. I think that you should take your own advice about dropping the stick.Dom from Paris (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Domdeparis and User:Bearcat, I am indeed dropping out of this discussion now. Let it be known, however, that this is because each of you has blatantly lied here at least once (cutting out a highly unfavorable portion of a policy quote as I pointed out before, and now stating that essays represent consensus when even the template at the top of the essay under discussion very clearly states that they do not). I am unsure why this type of conduct continues to be tolerated, but sadly I am not in a position to pursue this any further at this time. Modernponderer (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Modernponderer: Accusing other users of being WP:LIARS without proof is a WP:PERSONAL ATTACK please strike your comment. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the wrong username, citing an essay AGAIN, making false claims (again), and messing up the formatting here for a second time... wow. (Not to mention dragging me back into a discussion I had already decided to leave.) Nevertheless, I have struck out the comments in question but only because ~~unlike you~~ I try to follow policy, and conduct is technically not supposed to be debated on pages such as these, only content. Modernponderer (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing is a little hard to find, and the results tend to be a small amount of material over a wide variety of sources. Nevertheless, I think there is enough there to put together an article that can comply with our BLP policies. I've added two book citations to help move things along. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the book sources and the Deformed and Destructive Beings is really a passing mention that says the more accomplished Geena Davis in the original; lookalike Saffron Henderson in the sequel and in the The Gorehound's Guide to Splatter Films of the 1980s she is listed in 2 cast lists and talks about her without being named as a "stand-in" for Geena Davis who was maybe "above horror films at this point in time". I can't really see this adding to her notability to be honest. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was kind of my point - the sourcing is lots of publications, but only a few sentences in each, so it's a marginal case. Another way of looking at it, when consulting alternatives to deletion, is to redirect somewhere. But there's no obvious target to redirect as she's had her fingers in so many pies (so to speak). That generally leaves "keep" as the only option left. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that there are a lot of actors (voice and otherwise) that have been knocking around for years so they have a long list of credits and have a few interviews in trade or niche magazines but as they have never really made the big time there is no real in depth coverage. As she comes from a show biz family I think we could redirect to this section Bill_Henderson_(Canadian_singer)#Personal on her father's page that mentions her and if she ever gets that big role then the page can be expanded. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A careful reading of NOR shows that there's a context in which interviews can be considered primary sources. There's also context where they shouldn't. I think on balance there's enough here, especially as there's far too much for delete IMHO and, as Richie says, no obvious redirect target. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any independent sources on her (such as feature articles): there are no independent secondary sources that aren't directory listings. She's done a few interviews, but it's difficult to count those toward notability. No prejudice on recreation/read this as a changed vote if a feature article or two has gone missing. SportingFlyer talk 06:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final re-list to check if a stronger and more evident consensus can emerge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 05:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No doubt of notability. However the article's a mess and needs to be set up better. And what's the story with her date of birth???? Is it September 25, 1965 or is it December 27, 1967? Interesting to learn that Chris Walas had hired her to appear as Veronica Quaife in the opening sequence of The Fly II. Tidy it up and you'll have no problems. 10:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Notability does not attach to the claims that an article makes, it attaches to the quality and reliability and depth of the sources being shown to support the claims. Bearcat (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Passes WP:NACTOR from her work with the Dragon Ball series alone, imo. As others have said, needs some serious tidying. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After looking at this more closely, one only person wants to keep this, and they have 145 edits, most of which about this topic. Sandstein 16:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TVD Universe

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

Fails WP:GNG is totally unsourced and is not mentioned in any of the bluekinks on the page. Draftified but recreated without improvement Dom from Paris (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just realised that TVD is the vampire diaries so at best this should be redirected to the series page. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Vampire Diaries. However, article is currently misnamed, so it should possibly be moved to The Vampire Diaries Universe first, and then converted to a redirect. But subject is not independently notable, and I'm not sure there's a WP:RS that's ever used this term. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page was created to fulfil the requirement of an individual page for the fictional Universe of The Vampire Diaries. Such pages already exist on Wikipedia such as that of Arrowverse which is separate from the page of the original series Arrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SameeNagi (talk • contribs) 18:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Vampire Diaries Universe is popularly known as "TVD Universe" therefore, the name of the page is so. Even the creator/producer of the show Julie Plec started referring to the universe as the "TVD Universe" several times after the fans created this name.
Comment The show has expanded to a universe of 4 series (3 TV Series and 1 Webseries) as well as a list of bestselling novels and comic series by DC Comics. Clearly, the universe deserves a separate wikipedia page just like Arrowverse of Arrow. Kindly consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SameeNagi (talk • contribs) 19:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Multiple (rebuttal) points here. First, this is a WP:OSE argument. Second, use of "Arrowverse" has actually made that article controversial. However, there are actually Reliable sources that use the term "Arrowverse" (check that article's references...), so it is both 1) not-WP:OR (at least, not entirely), and 2) notable in its own right as outside sources have used the term. In this case, AFAIK, there are no secondary sources that are devoted to (or, indeed, have ever really talked about) "The Vampire Diaries Universe" (on television) as a "thing"... IOW, the subject is non-notable, and does not merit an article of its own. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My search in Google News shows that some sources do use the phrase "TVD Universe". I am not sure if it is enough to prove notability, but just wanted to add this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of those, the only one that's worth anything is the Variety one, and they put "TVD" in quotes (literally), and it's a incidental mention. (A lot of the rest of those are coming from comments sections, which don't count.) Like I said, even that "Arrowverse" article is not uncontroversial. But, here, we don't have even one article dedicated to the topic. Without that, I think this is not notable. This is basically a WP:Neologism AFAIAC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable; just wanted to raise it to your attention. ~~I have no vote either way on this.~~ Aoba47 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have contributed to the discussion, I should cast a vote out of respect. I vote delete as I do not believe there is enough substantial coverage on this particular concept. Multiple shows exist within the same timeline does not make the universe inherently notable (I can think of several other universes). More sources are needed to argue for notability (just in my opinion). I am honestly leaning toward delete as I do not know if this is really a viable search term. Aoba47 (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read the newly added information on the page. I've worked really hard on it. It includes references too in order to prove authenticity to you. However, it must be noted that the page requires more work. So, patience is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SameeNagi (talk • contribs) 20:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read the Creator/Producer Julie Plec's interview in this link: https://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/the-vampire-diaries-series-finale_us_58bdd9cbe4b033be1467bb14 and search for "TVDU" using 'find' in browser to save time. I hope this makes it notable. Moreover, in one of the above comments, a user provided another link of google news to prove notability. Please consider both these sources which in turn provide thousands of sources that prove TVD Universe's notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SameeNagi (talk • contribs) 20:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Domdeparis: Wikipedia is a non-profit organisation which strives to provide easy access to information. As Wikipedia contributors, it is our mission that the aforementioned vision of the organisation remains intact. Moreover, we must work towards making the already available information clearer and more understandable so that every user/visitor can make the most of every piece of information provided by us. Knowledge is a gift and lack of notability must never limit the expansion of that knowledge. A separate wikipedia page for TVDU (and even for Arrowverse which is now being called controversial) acts as a "compiled" source to understand this vast fictional universe. With the availability of this page/source, a reader can get hands-on information about this particular subject without having to read 4-5 pages individually. Sometimes it is not merely about "notability," it is more about well-compiled and easy-to-access knowledge and that's what makes Wikipedia special. With this I close my argument to keep this page (as well as that of Arrowverse) up and running. Thank you for your consideration. Please approve both these pages and prevent deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SameeNagi (talk • contribs) 12:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — beyond the problematic nature of rushing to label any program that begets another program or film, etc. a "universe" (which is primarily a marketing tactic or the language of an over-enthused fandom), that term has rarely if ever been applied to The Vampire Diaries. It's a TV program, with one spin-off, and that spin-off is getting a spin-off. The fact RS don't talk about the Happy Days "universe" even though that series had multiple spin-offs should indicate something: "universe" is a more often than not a term used by some small segment of a fandom. As IJBall pointed out, even the concept of the "Arrowverse" is a controversial notion, and that is certainly more frequently used and widely known than any mention of TVD belonging to a "shared universe". Accessing information on the series that relate to TVD can be done through categories, lists, inboboxes, navboxes, and good old-fashioned links. The notion that somehow the project is lesser because there isn't an overarching article that presents on all connected series in a "well-compiled" fashion is ridiculous. Wikipedia is not Wikia, and is definitely not indiscriminate. We don't put together articles just because we can and we don't put together certain types of articles just because other places have articles of that type or format. And the existence of the "Arrowverse" article and the "MCU" article doesn't mean it's appropriate to create similar articles for every collection of linked series... again as previously mentioned, that's a WP:OTHER argument. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article has been deleted by Fastily per WP:G7 on behalf of the article creator Lalalucy123. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 17:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ground O.N.E

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

The only significant coverage I could find for this organization was the links from The Renewal Project, which are already used as sources. Even then, the sources aren't significant, and even seem to be rather promotional in tone. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ground ONE has its own webpage (https://www.ground-one.org/). While I understand that that cannot be used in its article, it shows that there are links about this organization outside the Renewal Progress which were not cited. Also, please note, that both articles referenced were meant to explain the significance of the organization as opposed to promoting it. "5 Ways Students Can Become Civic Leaders" gives insight into the history of Ground ONE and encourages other youth to do similar projects, it does not directly promote Ground ONE for any monetary or publicity gain. The second article is simply a quote from one of the organization's founders in a listing of other impactful organizations. Its main focus is listing successful groups as opposed to directly promoting them. I fully understand your concerns and I will add a notice asking for the article to be revamped as soon as possible and I would appreciate it if the article is not deleted just yet. Also, I've just reviewed the list of Wikipedia policies and I can't find which polices that my article has violated. The Renewal Project is run by Atlantic Media,one of the largest media companies in the US (it also controls The Atlantic Monthly, a popular American magazine). How are my sources not significant? Lalalucy123 ^tccsdnew 13:44, 30 June 2018 (EST)

You may need to read WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORP. Essentially, while The Renewal Project links are a good start, it's still only one source. Ideally, we'd need several. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Renewal Project is an independent, online secondary media source, I believe that the the article's topic is inherently notable according to WP:CORP. Regarding your first rules, it is true that there isn't a whole lot of literature on Ground ONE, but that doesn't directly break the rules you showed me. None of the article's notability is derived from other wikipedia articles or the article's content itself. The article isn't ideal(I have already classified it as a stub), but I don't believe that it is objectively illegal according to Wikipedia rules. Also, the publisher Rowman and Littlefield (which has no non-business connection to me or Ground ONE) will be publishing a book on civic engagement shortly, which includes Ground ONE. I would be happy to contact them for additional reference material in the coming weeks or months. Can I please be granted a stay of deletion until then? I have also added the notice to my article asking for improvement from other Wikipedians. Also, just curious, when will this discussion continue? Lalalucy123 ^tccsdnew 17:16, 6 July 2018 (EST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a question. Will my comments in defense of my article still be visible to those in the discussion after it was relisted? Also, I'm sorry for deleting the deletion notice from my article; I was unaware of the Wikipedia policy regarding deletion discussions. Lalalucy123 ^tccsdnew 20:16, 8 July 2018 (EST)

Yes, your comments are still visible. Newslinger (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:ORG due to lack of coverage from a reliable secondary source. According to their site, The Renewal Project is an blog created by Allstate and Atlantic57 (a public relations firm), not a publication with a proper editorial process. Newslinger (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, while The Renewal Project is a collaboration between Allstate and Atlantic Media Strategies(a.k.a Atlantic57), Atlantic57 is not a public relations firm. It is, according to one of its own sites, the consulting and creative division of The Atlantic, which is most definitely a publication with proper editorial process. Therefore, isn't The Renewal Project effectively an affiliate ofThe Atlantic? Link to aforementioned site: https://www.theatlantic.com/press-releases/archive/2016/06/introducing-the-renewal-project-a-social-newsroom-at-americas-intersection-of-innovation-community-and-social-good/486371/ (please note the explicit text in the article where it says that the Renewal Project is the result of a definite partnership with The Atlantic(not just Atlantic57), which is once again a very well known publication and a reliable secondary source) Lalalucy123 ^tccsdnew 19:59,12 July 2018 (EST)

For reference, here's Atlantic57's case study for The Renewal Project. I don't think that two articles from The Renewal Project would satisfy WP:ORGCRIT ("multiple reliable sources"), but perhaps others can offer a second opinion. Newslinger (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my previous comment(backed up by the cited article), Atlantic 57 is also a direct reflection of The Atlantic publication. They even share some parts of their staff and nearly all of their publication process. The article you posted explains the the Renewal Project helps create articles and explains new initiatives (from an independent 3rd party point of view) and gives them exposure. It doesn't say that Atlantic57 is a public relations firm.Respectfully, I don't see how that goes against Wikipedia policy for source material. Regarding the need for multiple sources, I totally see your point, but it is worth noting that both the articles I referenced have different authors and different content, not to mention different reference material. Can't that count as perhaps not two wholly different sources, but two different source reference points? Lalalucy123 ^tccsdnew 01:16,13 July 2018 (EST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing Atlantic 57's case study on The Renewal Project, I'm not changing my delete vote. The case study states that The Renewal Project is "an integrated marketing campaign [...] reinforcing Allstate’s commitment to social good." This source is inherently unreliable, even if Atlantic 57 is branded as a consulting firm instead of a public relations firm. Newslinger (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. However, please remember that Atlantic 57 isn't even a firm in the first place. It, according to its own website, (https://www.atlantic57.com/our-story/) is the creative and consulting division of The Atlantic Magazine. Also, I fully comprehend your argument regarding Atlantic 57's Case Study on the Renewal Project. However, the integrated marketing campaign is a very small part of the actual article that you showed this discussion and isn't even mentioned past the first paragraph. Please note that the very case study that you cited also explicitly states that The Renewal Project directly reflects and creates "regular native and underwritten editorial content on The Atlantic." My point here is that Atlantic 57 is essentially The Atlantic Magazine. A bona fide part of a publication stil represents the publication. I won't deny that Atlantic 57 also does marketing, but that is only a very small fraction of everything it does. The specific articles that I used as reference on my Wikipedia article have absolutely no marketing done for Ground ONE. Lalalucy123 ^tccsdnew 20:16,14 July 2018 (EST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Newslinger: doesn't pass WP:GNG, and also fails WP:NCORP (if applicable). SportingFlyer talk 06:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've read both of the documents you've listed and they are identical to what I've already been shown. Can you please explain your position?Lalalucy123 ^tccsdnew 21:54, 22 July 2018 (EST)

Hello, I've grown tired of debating my article. May I have permission to take it down and close the debate until I have more notable sources? I understand that my sources aren't exactly the most notable and I appreciate everyone who has taken the time to explain that to me. Lalalucy123 ^tccsdnew 10:57, 25 July 2018 (EST)

@Lalalucy123: The discussion will close around July 29. If you want to take the article down sooner, you can add the {{Db-g7}} speedy deletion template to the top of the article and an administrator will delete it. Be sure to save any work you want to retain before you mark the article for speedy deletion. — Newslinger talk 12:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this. Thank you for your help. Lalalucy123 ^tccsdnew 17:47, 26 July 2018 (EST)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kauvery Hospital

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

This hospital appears to be a private clinic. I can find no reliable outside sources to provide notability and its own website is unhelpful. Much of the information in the present article is unsourced and it is basically an advertisement. It appears to be the work of CoI editors who have also been adding bios of the medical personnel to Wikipedia Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage from several reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG. Listed with Bombay Stock Exchange Accesscrawl (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Accesscrawl: Being listed on a stock exchange does not establish notability. Can you provide links to the reliable sources? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Government website mention Financial Express Mention Accesscrawl (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Notability. Full of advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entradakoi (talk • contribs) 05:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Accesscrawl: Your first link (National Health Portal of India) is broken. The correct link is just a directory listing with the hospital's name, address, and phone number, but no additional content. The second link (Financial Express) is a good source, but it's too specific without additional reliable sources covering the hospital more comprehensively. — Newslinger talk 12:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. I'm unable to find more than one reliable source offering significant coverage of the hospital. — Newslinger talk 12:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, not notable, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor a Yellow Pages. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have good coverage on various aspects of the hospital - e.g. [63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71]. Should pass WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these sources meet WP:SIGCOV, since they don't address the hospital directly and in detail. Each of these sources focuses on one small aspect of the hospital, which wouldn't be enough to make the hospital notable. Newslinger (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misinterpretation of what WP:SIGCOV says. The sources should not be trivial mentions, and most of these are not, and WP:SIGCOV certainly doesn't preclude one source focusing on a particular aspect of the hospital. The idea that a hospital with 100 doctors and over 1000 staff in just one branch is not significant is odd to say the least. Hzh (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGDEPTH explains the "significant coverage" requirement in more detail for organizations. It requires coverage that "provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements." The section also provides examples of what would be considered significant and trivial. These sources fall short:

Times of India: Brief mention of volunteer work
The Hindu: Routine coverage of expansion
Medical Dialogues: Routine coverage of expansion
404 error
Financial Express: Routine coverage of acquisition
The Hindu: Passing mention of event sponsorship
The Hindu: Passing mention of event sponsorship
Verdict Hospital: Routine coverage of expansion
The Times of India: Passing mention of event (workshop). The article is about an angioplasty method, not the hospital.

Also, WP:ORGDEPTH does not take arbitrary numbers (such as numbers of doctors and staff) into account when determining an organization's notability. — Newslinger talk 12:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hzh. The first two references given — at least — are about the hospital, unless you want to say that e.g. this only counts towards an article specifically about their brain and spine centre. That would be better covered within an article about the hospital as a whole. Mortee (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Five Starcle Men

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

does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This band was influential in the underground experimental music scene of the 1990s. They have over 27,000 downloads on the Internet Archive and many devoted fans: https://archive.org/details/lf074mp3 It is a mistake to remove this page. Wikipedia needs to hold space for bands with an alternative media presence outside mainstream distribution and publishing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valis911 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources in the article are cack, and there seems to be nothing better out there. --Michig (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. The Village Voice is the one decent source in the article, but it mentions the band only briefly as part of a wider article about bands and teen suicide. "Wikipedia needs to hold space for bands with an alternative media presence outside mainstream distribution and publishing" – only if the bands in question pass the notability and verifiability guidelines of WP:GNG and WP:V, Valis911. Richard3120 (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunesis Pharmaceuticals

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Looking at ghits, especially the news section, we see that most of the items listed as PR pieces, press release content and churnalism. If this company has failed to generate significant coverage in the past 20 years, we can assume that they are non notable. 2Joules (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unstruck nomination text, per WP:G5, since AfD initiated before sock block. -The Gnome (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome, FreeatlastChitchat was blocked by NeilN on 6 March 2018, long before this page was created. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are we not going with the date the nominator ("2Joules") was blocked? Moreover, if we strike off the nominator's whole text, then this means the AfD would be null and void and should be closed down immediately. -The Gnome (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — I am one of the editors who has contributed to the article. Of the 7 citations currently supporting the article, only one is a press release / self-published; the remaining 6 are from established news outlets, mostly newspapers, with one being from Science Translational Medicine. GHits are not a measure of notability any longer, considering the vast content in Internet Archive and Newspapers.com, neither of which are touched by Google. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Ceyockey This mention in newspapers.com is just a trivial passing mention, so is this one. Then there are the quarterly financial reports used as sources. The source you mention from Science Translational Medicine is a blog. They explicitly state on the top that the blog is in no way affiliated with the magazine and does not have any peer review etc. They call it editorially independent. So it is not part of the magazine. With such unreliable sourcing, this should have been deleted ages ago. 2Joules (talk) 08:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking off commentary by confirmed sockpuppet. -The Gnome (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:2Joules — As with previous articles I've contributed to and which were ultimately deleted, I won't oppose if the consensus is delete. In regard to the blog posting, blog postings by notable individuals (i.e. who have articles on Wikipedia) are certainly reliable sources; the author just had not been linked before, now linked. Trivial mentions - I'll have to review these again to see if your evaluation aligns with my interpretation. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this promotional and poorly sourced text trying to pass as an article. Subject fails WP:NCORP, let's just say. -The Gnome (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:CAPTAIN RAJU — I REALLY take issue with this being described as "promotional". There is no content which attempts to aggrandize or hype the firm. -- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I presume, Ceyockey, you're addressing me rather than User:CAPTAIN RAJU. Briefly, the label "promotional" is based on the use of weaselly words and phrases in the contested article such as: "focused on"; "this new opportunity"; "tethering", without explanation (the source cited does not explain, while the DCC article itself is unsatisfactory, so the user is left staring at just an impressive sounding word); etc. Plus, this being an article indirectly about scientific subjects (chemistry, biology), we need explanations for the terms used, otherwise, again, the user is left just staring at impressive wordage. For example, "...helping leukemia patients with a C481S mutation". What's "C4815"? And what it means to be a mutation of it? Admittedly, the sum does not constitute something highly promotional, but when it comes to articles about corporations, we must be vigilant. In any case, the bigger problem here is lack of notability; weasels can be run out. -The Gnome (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for the mis-direction, @The Gnome. I don't think I added any of the promotional-signals, and all of these can be addressed. The C4815 thing ... that bothered me too; drugs are now targeting specific mutations, but that info doesn't belong in the company article, but in the drug article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, the latter in particular. The sources cited by the article are all either trivial mentions, press releases, minor list articles (such as the Wisconsin State Journal citation), etc. None these pass the newly-strengthened NCORP guideline for notability or CORPDEPTH. Furthermore, neither the sources cited nor the article itself make a credible claim to significance for the company, which seems to be a run-of-the-mill pharmaceutical company with doubtful encyclopedic notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — @User:SamHolt6 noted the WP:CORPDEPTH, which I'd not been familiar with prior to this; it provides a guide to source evaluation, which did not exist before. As I've been defending the article, I thought it incumbent upon me to do the WP:CORPDEPTH source analysis, which appears below. I'd be interested in how you feel my interpretation of sources matches your interpretations. I do agree that "2" as the count of supporting pass citations is insufficient to support a keep for the current state of the article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
GenEngNews article	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is less about the company and more about a marketing submission for one of their products.
article about 'coverage' in Street Insider	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is a note about what I think is an investment bank and their starting to track performance of the company.
blog post at Science Translational Medicine	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	This blog posting is by a notable person and appears in association with a reputable journal publisher, though independent.
"Quest for the Cure" book citation	N	Y	Y	Y	N	One sentence related to the founding of the company.
listing in Wisconsin State Journal	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Very brief note about an impending initial public offering
listing in Austin American-Statesman	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Very brief note about an impending initial public offering
Financial Results press release	Y	N	N	N	N	impossible to determine whether this is reliable, as self-published and not subject to penalty if false.
listing in News Journal	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Very brief note about a 4th quarter loss
article in Seeking Alpha following release of 2017 financial results	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	This source has not been fully utilized in the article.
article in Ukiah Daily Journal (AP piece)	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Collaborations between companies are not intrinsically significant, unless they yield significant outcomes and this is a note on the begining of a collab, which might yield nothing.
GenomeWeb "People In The News"	N	Y	Y	Y	N	noting an award given to Wells, with mention of his founding of Sunesis
Total qualifying sources					2	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Comment : The way I see it, Ceyockey, your evaluation above demonstrates indeed lack of sources about the contested subject. -The Gnome (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — glad I didn't make any major mistakes in the review ... first time I've used this method, User:The Gnome. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm seeing self published press releases, announcements, and passing mentions. Blue Riband► 17:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood Cancer Research Group

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

This subdivision of an academic department is not notable. Natureium (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the group were a person, it would pass notability based on the Google Scholar citations listed at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Childhood+Cancer+Research+Group%22&btnG= Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fun fact, but this isn't a person. By that criteria, almost any academic department would probably be notable enough, which is not the case. We probably don't want tens of thousands of articles on academic divisions and working groups. Natureium (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete blatant academic spam.Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of RS available for this, the organisation is referred to numbersiou times in Google scholar, as above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

handwavy "plenty of refs" is persuasive. You need to show them, and show that they are independent, and with significant discussion. See WP:NCORP Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NCORP, sources must be independent. Aearches in google scholar are most likely turn up affiliations of authors, not independent sources with significant discussion about the organization. A simply invalid !vote. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you sticking to google scholar? A simple news search demonstrates plenty of independent sources, some even critical, about the subject.Where are the refs? (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to actually show the refs. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could probably be merged into Divisions_of_the_University_of_Oxford#Medical_Sciences_Division (an article that itself needs some fairly radical surgery) where it could be summarised in a few sentences. I'll volunteer to take care of that if it can be agreed on. Basie (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'll add some sources after this, there's definitely enough coverage for a standalone article.Where are the refs? (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saying you will add refs later is not sufficient to keep an article. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This is basically an advert. I also see COI concerns. 2Joules (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is the convention not to have articles about individual centers and departments, no matter how many are their accumulated publications. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 15:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'll Never Beat the Irish

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

Delete. Multiple issues including WP:V and WP:NN, like the other articles listed below. All are bare listings without any indication of notability and all are the work of the same editor resembling a private collection rather than an encyclopaedic series. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC) Izzat Kutebar (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the following which are all related to the above:

Same rationale for deletion. Please let me know if I need to do anything else. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all of them. probably promotional or fan pages. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All and improve each through the normal editing process, or assess individually. This massive group nomination shows a deficient WP:BEFORE search for each individual album and for the group collectively. The nominator also missed WP:NEXIST, which states that the current absence of sources in an article is not proof that sources do not exist at all, and that editors should search for them and add them going forward. Of the 13 albums in the nomination, 8 have reviews at AllMusic which can be found easily. The following do not have AllMusic reviews: You'll Never Beat the Irish, As Gaeilge, The Foggy Dew (album), The Troubles (Wolfe Tones album), and 'Till Ireland a Nation. Of that group, The Troubles (Wolfe Tones album) received one possibly useful review that I could find ([72]), and I could find nothing for the other four. Those five albums could be subjected to this AfD process individually but that is not a good reason to condemn the band's entire discography through this collective nomination. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Per Doomsdayer520, I don't see that WP:BEFORE has been met here. Even if it were found that some individual subjects do not meet WP:NALBUM (to the extent that the content was to be deleted), some of the titles themselves would seem appropriate to at least retain as a redirect (to the extent that the titles would seem appropriate to keep). If we get to that point, The Wolfe Tones discography would seem a viable target. Otherwise, the individual articles should be individually assessed. And, at quick glance, per Doomsdayer520, at least some of the albums listed have been the subject of non-trivial reviews/coverage. Short of evidence of WP:BEFORE on each of them, I don't see how I could support the "delete them all" recommendation. (Separately, I would note that all of these articles were created by the same [now] blocked user. And nominated shortly after that user was blocked. I'm not saying its the case here, and while it sometimes seem like it perhaps should be, "the author is a dick" is not a valid AfD rationale.) Guliolopez (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The first two "keep"s don't make much sense. Sandstein 15:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Mehwish Arshad

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS. This is a recent event that is unlikely to endure. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Why else I would create this if it wasn't notable enough. And I dont think so it fails Wikipedia notability issue. And this is certainly not an ordinary incident. It has a sufficient coverage to be included in the wikipedia. Nauriya Lets Talk 19:14 30 June 2018 (UTC).

I'm sure as the creator you think it's notable enough but this is not about your personal opinion but notability guidelines. For an event to be notable it has to have significant non routine coverage over a period of time. All the sources date from a period of a few days as one would expect of any murder. The last source you have added dates from 10 days ago. This suggests that it has no long lasting notability. There are thousands of murders reported every day we only create articles about notable events. This murder is a tragedy but as it says in WP:NEVENT Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DIVERSE. --39.57.223.207 (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)— 39.57.223.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please be clearer about how this helps show that the subject meets NEVENT. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sad story, but doesn't look like it meets notability requirements at WP:CRIME. Neither the victim nor the perpetrator were notable in their own rights, nor was the crime particularly noteworthy. Also, given that the trial hasn't even taken place and the perpetrator is living and therefore falls under BLP guidelines, the note in WP:CRIME certainly applies: "Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." If this crime turns out to have enduring significance, it may need an article at some point, but at this point it is WP:TOOSOON to assume it will be anything other than an unfortunate criminal event. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID. Fairly wide international coverage for a murder in Pakistan. The question as this point is whether such coverage will be LASTING and SUSTAINED - however we can not evaluate this at this without a crystal ball at this point, hence RAPID.Icewhiz (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think RAPID applies here as it says delay for a few days after the event has taken place. This event happened more than a month ago so it is no longer breaking news. NEVENT clearly states that routine events such as crimes are usually not notable unless something further gives them enduring notability. This murder took place over a month ago and no other sources have been added beyond the initial reporting of the crime. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of features to this murder that make it notable (e.g. it being filmed). Most murders in Pakistan receive scant local coverage. This one has been receiving international coverage for a few news cycles - for some time after the event. With the coverage so far. There is enough coverage for notability - the question is whether it will be SUSTAINED.Icewhiz (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my reply to the article creator all the sources date from a few days as one would expect from a murder and then dry up. The last one was dated from nearly 3 weeks ago. The only possibly notable element was the fact this was filmed but beyond the voyeuristic element of this murder having been posted on the web and the novelty factor for a source to be able to post actual images of the crime there are no other reasons why this murder got coverage and as all the sources are single reports about the event I cannot see the proof that this was reported over more than 1 news cycle. As per NEVENT it doesn't matter if events were widely reported at the time it is the sustainability that matters. Half of the sources are not signed and come from either "web desk" or "news desk" or some such, and one is signed by a "trainee social media journalist". If there were follow up in depth reports from the same sources this may point to notability but there are none. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCRIME & WP:NOTNEWS. No apparent nor expected lasting signifance or societal impact. Borders on invasion of privacy. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Those who cite RAPID tend to ignore the entirety of our notability guidelines for events and their argument falls apart when you analyze it. Saying LASTING cannot be evaluated is another way of telling the closer there is ‘’no’’ lasting impact. Hence, it was too soon to create this article, as the other half of RAPID (“don’t ‘’rush’’ to create articles”) explicitly describes. The notability guidelines also warns us violent crimes are excellent for the media, but the encyclopedia has different criteria we follow with much higher standards for inclusion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NCRIME & WP:NOTNEWS as per K.e.coffman. All the news covers the actual event intensively for a few days, before apparently ceasing completely by 20th June. No reports of protests or laws changing or regulations being made, or politicians saying anything apart from the usual platitudes. Curdle (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 15:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tapire-iauara

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

Does not appear to meet notability requirements, lacks significant RS coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't the first one of these cryptid stubs at AFD, and I generally approach them – fairly or not – with the initial assumption that they will be contrived, pseudoscientific dreck backed up by fringe sources, if anything at all. To my surprise, this appears to be a legitimate folklore topic. The best source is Man, Fishes, and the Amazon, which dedicated a couple of pages to the creature's mythology and folklore. But it does receive attention in other works as well, including an admittedly brief treatment by Jacques Yves Cousteau in Jacques Cousteau's Amazon Journey. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the folklore is also mentioned in The Enchanted Amazon Rainforest.^[2] It does appear to be actual folklore, but I'm not completely sure there's enough material to justify an article yet. You said there are a couple of pages in Man, Fishes, and the Amazon? --tronvillain (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above are what I can find as well. Not able to look into that book though, so not sure if it's a sufficientlty extensive treatment / provides any material? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/does-the-blue-wave-start-in-jersey/2018/07/15/db44a0b2-86e4-11e8-8f6c-46cb43e3f306_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.057e31302f61
^ Smith, Nigel J. H. (1996). The Enchanted Amazon Rain Forest: Stories from a Vanishing World. University Press of Florida. ISBN 978-0-8130-1377-0.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Needs expansion, but does seem to be sourced. I will hold of on voting to give it a chance for expansion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only a snippet but this passes notability for me [[73]].Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added a line, a footnote, and a few sources, and we would likely be able to expand this if someone speaking Portuguese would have a closer look. I don't think we should expect this getting expanded to a potential DYK candidate any time soon, on the other hand I don't see how the encyclopædia is better off by tossing these sourceable stubs out. Paper encyclopædias of my youth and of our forefathers brimmed with these short entries. Sam Sailor 08:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in light of the new additions notability may have been established and it seems worth giving this some more opportunity. --tronvillain (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TriYoga

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

Article is was a linkfarm until I deleted the links here [74], but still lacks decent sources, appears to be promotional in nature, and fails WP:GNG. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. I found multiple sources with brief mentions and HARO-style quotes from TriYoga affiliates, but none of the reliable sources had in-depth coverage. Newslinger (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminati (UV group)

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

Analysis of the sources indicates that most are trivial or unreliable. Several concern non-notable awards which don't confer notability. Only sources 8 and 9 are any larger than a sentence. 8 is mostly about the performer dancing with Illuminati. 9 is slightly better, but still no more than a scant paragraph describing a performance.

I tried to Google for more sources and came up with very little. That being said, their name makes them hard to Google, and I can only search in English, so I'll admit there may be sources I could have missed.

Ultimately at this point I don't see enough to support a claim of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of very-weak-going-on-bad sourcing. Let's just hope WP:TOOSOON and wish them better luck next time.

Sources: The Times of India article mentions the group once, in the list of the acts. The Forbes article has nothing to do with the group; it's about a conference on "India's IT industry bracing up for a 4th industrial revolution"; the group is mentioned once, when describing the entertainment. Then, there is a listing of awards in a "'Live Quotient Awards", in which it's reported that the group won in the category of "Innovative Act". There's a FilmiBeat review of a film called ABCD2 that's entirely irrelevant to the group. In the Bolly Spice article, the group is mentioned once, as back-up to a singer in a TV show. The Hindu mentions the group once in its report of the acts participating in a festival. Indiacom has a report about an ethnic-fashion designer; the group danced in one of his exhibitions. That's the pattern all the way. -The Gnome (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Metropolitan Dance Company

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

I'm not finding enough non-local sourcing to indicate that this dance company satisfies WP:N, specifically the portion that requires sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. While there is some press, it is all from the Houston area, which means it fails WP:AUD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most coverage is in either Dallas, Houston, or Austin newspapers, but in addition to two feature articles in Dance informa magazine (one on the company itself [75] and one on its youth company [76]), it's garnered more-than-passing-mention coverage in nationwide sources Dance Magazine [77]—probably the most popular U.S. dance magazine—and Dance Spirit [78]. In addition, there's plenty of coverage in regional and statewide sources, including Arts + Culture Texas (statewide) [79][80][81][82][83][84] and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (serving Western North Texas) [85][86]. These sources range from almost five years to only a few months old, with consistent coverage in between. For finding more sources, note that the company goes by "METdance" these days.

Overall, WP:AUD's requirement that at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary is more than adequately met. FourViolas (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that "necessary" is entirely different from "sufficient." -The Gnome (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The policy states, "not (exists at least one more-than-local source) implies not notable"; the converse, "(exists at least one more-than-local source) implies notable," isn't logically entailed, but is presumed to hold since WP:GNG is met. If the AUD guideline were meant to include some stricter standard, it would have to be specifically stated. In any case, it would be unreasonable to require more than 12 such sources. FourViolas (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the necessary bit is covered as per FourViolas, and the sufficient part is covered by myriad acceptable soures as provided. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given that there are sources beyond local news coverage, the rationale for the AfD is not valid. Hzh (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Wallbridge

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

After removing a couple of claims which have failed verification the article no longer indicates notability. Laun chba ller 10:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a long-time ghost producer Mr. Wallbridge is probably responsible for some notable dance tracks... there's articles here from Billboard [87] and DJ Mag [88] about his involvement in ghost production but it means we'll never know what those songs were, and never have any RS to prove his role in them. None of his own records have ever charted, so it's likely that this article will be deleted due to lack of credible sources. This BBC clip [89] is only 20 seconds long and tells you nothing more than what's in the paragraph of text alongside it. Otherwise there are various EDM websites like YourEDM [90] and EDM Sauce [91], and I don't think we've ever really established whether these pass RS or not.

If Mr. Wallbridge's article gets deleted, the article for his album The Inner Me should be deleted as well. Richard3120 (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think "probably" is the most important word in that sentence. Wikipedia requires that all material be attributable to reliable, published sources. If he has genuinely produced that many hit records, then having another should be a Wikipedia article for old rope, but for now it's too soon.--Laun chba ller 17:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, Wallbridge does have some sources mentioning him in their pages, at Dancing Astronaut, YourEDM, and Billboard which I would generally cite as reliable. Page looks very sparse at the moment and would require a complete rewrite if it were to stay in the mainspace. Perhaps move it to draft for someone to rewrite it? (Note to the editor above, EDM Sauce is not a reliable source since it's a blog) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANode (talk • contribs) 14:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing up the status of EDM Sauce, I appreciate it. The problem I see is that although the sources mentioned above are reliable, the content is weak or primary source material. The Billboard, DJ Mag and YourEDM sources are essentially the same thing, and are reporting on a video made by Mr. Wallbridge in which he talks about how he supposedly produced ten no. 1 records on Beatport and why he isn't going to be a ghost producer any more – that's a primary source, and there is no means of verifying his claims in the video. The Dancing Astronaut hits are mostly passing mentions of the "Ashley Wallbridge has a new record out" type. My concern is that even if the article is rewritten, we don't really have anything much more than "Ashley Wallbridge is a DJ and producer who has made lots of records, some of them in collaboration with other producers, and none of them have ever charted on any national chart. He also claims to have made ten records that made number one on a non-notable chart, although his claims cannot be verified." Richard3120 (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, I agree that we cannot get very far with the content available as of now. Recently, I wrote a section here on Gareth Emery's page that discussed about CVNT5, a satire project that Wallbridge and him decided to do together in 2016. It's not much, but still counts as content for the Wallbridge page. Is it notable enough to save this page? aNode (discuss) 05:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Strikerforce^Talk 19:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apart from the other sources, he has been a featured artist in DJ Mag (the reliable and authoritative source on DJs, I believe) at least twice[92][93], plus once in their Japanese edition[94]. Fram (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a close call, but I do think that the sources Richard3120 provided, as well as the information that Fram provided, together are enough to meet the notability guidelines. We do need to add these sources to the article, though, as the current sourcing is rather poor.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Di Lorenzo

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

The subject of this article does not meet WP:NPROF. The sources don't convince me that WP:GNG is met, either - I don't have access to the Nydailynews source, but the rest are either primary sources or trivial mentions. The interview in Chronicle of Higher Education is an in-depth source, but on its own it is not sufficient. It was created by a sockpuppet of a blocked editor, but has quite a few edits by other people so probably isn't eligible for G5 - most of the recent edits have been serious BLP violations, though. bonadea contributions talk 14:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The New York Times article discusses Di Lorenzo both personally and in his professional capacity, and mentions the Aspire program for high school students that he created. Together with the other references, I think it establishes notability. The other point is that something is oddd about his supposed resignation. As an editor of one of the revisions that probably needs to be removed wrote, why would he resign if he was entitled to a paid family leave? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep on account of subject passing WP:NACADEMIC #6, as former dean of the New York University School of Professional Studies.~~ (Striking off suggestion following discussion herebelow) Of course, all that citation overkill (eight sources that he was a dean?) has got to go-o-o, and gotta ask the Lord's forgiveness. -The Gnome (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dean of a school within NYU does not satisfy #6. That criterion is only for heads of entire universities. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is a named deanship like a named chair for notability purposes? I honestly can't recall if this question has ever come up before. XOR'easter (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject was dean of New York University's School of Professional Studies. I'd presume, David Eppstein, that the position of a NYU school dean is at least equally notable as the position of a named chair or [a] distinguished professor at a major institution of higher education, per WP:NACADEMIC #5. Is it not? -The Gnome (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sometimes deans hold ex officio named chairs, but those don't count as the sort of named chair that would pass #5, because that criterion is supposed to be for scholarship (not managerial position) at a level clearly above the average full professor. (It's the same reason that named assistant professorships don't pass: because that's not what the criterion is about.) And sometimes deans have that level of scholarship, but other times they are just managers, so we need to find other evidence for it than being a dean. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to look this over again and come back. If we do not have #5 or #6 I can't see anything else one can hold on to. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If subject does not pass WP:NACADEMIC #5 & #6, then there is no Wikinotability to defend here. It surprised me that deans of schools within a university can't qualify but a careful reading of the guideline makes that clear, since it refers to the highest administrative post of an academic institution. I'll have to withdraw my Keep suggestion. -The Gnome (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing? on GS and little indication of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

How do I manage to write with invisible ink online? I have no idea. -The Gnome (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given both the split views and un-concluded NACADEMIC discussion that has occurred post the last relist I feel this warrants a third relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He seems to have been primarily a professional administrator, with little scholarly output, at an administrative level below passing for WP:PROF and at what amounts to a glorified trade school within NYU. Even the school's own press release on his retirement as dean [95] could find little to say that was actually about him or his accomplishments. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zombieland Saga

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

Article made same day of announcement for anime airing in fall. Perhaps in future (and with refs outside of industry fansites), but seems to me to be a little pre-emptive as well as having only trivial coverage in fansites which seems to fail GNG. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 03:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Anime News Network is not a "fansite": it's the best English language source for anime and manga-related news and has been running since 1998. As for the deletion, I obviously oppose it, but if the article is deleted, then I would recommend simply trimming it down to a redirect since it will definitely be notable within ~3 months. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 05:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP: TOOSOON - it might be worth checking the film for notability after the film has been released. Vorbee (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify - Considering it's an original anime, there's really not much info about it yet out other than the announcement. With that said, I'm opposed to it being deleted outright and would rather it be kept (we do keep articles on newly-announced original anime on a regular basis), but if keeping it isn't an option, draftifying would be a better alternative since it will air soon anyway. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From above, I would support this being turned into a draft. It just needs more sources to satisfy GNG, which you who are more familiar with anime/manga wiki articles (I'm a fan IRL but not active in that community on here), seem to think will happen with time. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 14:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Are you suggesting that October is far off? I personally would have waited for more information but the current article is fine for the time being. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no comments about production, cast, or anything of the sort. It's just simply too soon. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 17:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify Honestly, we should strongly discourage creating articles based solely on an anime announcement. Editors should allow time for additional reporting that establishments notability before creating such articles. There is also the slim chance that production would be canceled do to unforeseen situations, as we saw happen earlier this year. WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTE, and WP:NODEADLINE —Farix (t | c) 21:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you're kind of cherry-picking the content of those essays to suit your own needs. The very second point of WP:NODEADLINE is don't rush to delete articles unless their potential significance cannot be established. As a collaboration between two major and respected companies, I think this anime's significance has definitely been established, nevermind its potential significance. You also cite WP:CRYSTALBALL while simultaneously making a purely speculative comment about it potentially being cancelled, presumably in reference to New Life+: Young Again in Another World and the events surrounding its cancellation, an event which, I would argue, actually served to cement that series' notability. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or if that doesn't work move it to draft.. This seems to be some notable people producing it, so surely more attention later on. (edited for tone and also to say KEEP) Dream Focus 16:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact is, this anime will be coming out in only three months. To not have an article on it would be an oversight on the part of Wikipedia: people are going to be coming here looking for information on the subject, especially since it's a collaboration between a notable game developer (Cygames) and a notable and respected animation studio (MAPPA). Yes, the article is short right now, but that's why the stub classification exists: for articles that are currently short but cover something which is both necessary and has the potential to expand. Deleting it would be unnecessary and would only be in service of a misguided devotion to deletionism based on essays (not polices or even guidelines) such as WP:TOOSOON. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look through the custom Google search for anime (edit: can't post a link since it gives me a message its on the blacklist) and see if any of those places mention anything more than a brief mention it was coming out and who made it? Is there any details about it yet? Dream Focus 00:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The release date is not too far off for the present stub article to be kept, and expanded as more information becomes available. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The release date is far enough off that they don't have a "release date", they have a "release season". Does WP:NFF apply for a series? StrayBolt (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most anime don't have an exact release date announced until a few weeks from their premiere. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is it "Zombieland" or "Zombie Land"? This seems to be the press release. It doesn't show up on MAPPA Coming Soon.StrayBolt (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources refer to it as "Zombieland", so that's what I went with. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. The (probably) press release has both. Does the sources (only 1 in the article) add anything beyond the press release? The trailer has it broken up. Searching finds for me 88 "Zombie Land Saga" and about 154 "zombieland saga". Also, many of the Japanese pages write it "ZombieLand SAGA", but this might be one bad source being replicated (perhaps reducing the total count). Searching in Japanese finds 104 results. Maybe the split word is a bad auto-translation. Is there any connection with Zombieland? StrayBolt (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure MOS:CAPS would forbid the use of the stylization used in Japanese sources, which means it would default to the non-capitalized version (aka, how it is currently titled). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 22:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The official website says "(C) ZOMBIE LAND SAGA PARTNERS", but I know company names don't always match the final title. StrayBolt (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nom has been referred to as misguided deletionism but WP:CRYSTAL specifically recommends against announcements like this one. If the series had a definite date and a case for notability could be made, then a better argument to keep could be made. Right now, it has no evidence of a definite date, nor any additional sources since the page was nom'd. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. An upcoming TV series? The promotional department plays the music; we're not obliged to dance. No crystal balls here. -The Gnome (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Upcoming television series and the many similar categories suggest otherwise. Almost every new television series gets an article before they start airing. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should have phrased this better. Here's better: TV and film production is going on round the clock. New films, episodes, series, specials and what-have-you are announced, tested, piloted, teased, and so on, every minute and every hour. To sort out what's Wikinotable and what's not from this avalanche we rely on sources. A mere press release from the Cygames production company does not make the subject notable. Let's just graciously accord this a WP:TOOSOON. I hope this is better. -The Gnome (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be technical, but that was a news article, not a press release. This was a press release. There's a difference: one is a primary source, the other is a secondary source. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been admonished (more than warranted) about churnalism and while I don't know enough about the site, that article would qualify. While it does have a byline, it also says, "Source: Press Release" and has no info beyond what is in the PR. They edited the PR down, quoted the superlatives, added links,… basically what is done in WP for articles. StrayBolt (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, StrayBolt. Plus ça change, etc. -The Gnome (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, Merge, & Redirect - One press release/teaser does not an article make. Save the work done somewhere, mention it somewhere to acknowledge it, have a redirect to discourage creating an article until more information is released. I guess the redirect would preserve it so maybe the draft isn't needed. I'm not convinced there is not a space in "Zombie Land" so the title might change.StrayBolt (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Whether to merge can continue to be discussed. Sandstein 07:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apocryphal biographies in the Dictionary of National Biography

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

Editor-generated content that started as a critique of a single specific DNB entry and was subsequently renamed to allow for similar critiques of other DNB articles. There is no reference that points to these as examples of a notable phenomenon, it seems entirely to be Original Research/Synth based on the editors' subjective conclusion of what type of correction renders an earlier entry 'apocryphal'. The only references are to the original DNB article and the new ODNB article. This is not an encyclopedic topic, it is a listing of corrigenda and uses as its primary raison d'etre a direct in-text reference to a Wikipedia category. Agricolae (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but make into a list. The article is making some valid points, but might be easier to read if re-typed as a list. Vorbee (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article may be making valid points, but that is not the role of Wikipedia and its editors. They are expressly prohibited from making points if there isn't a source that has made that exact point that they are citing. Any list of apocryphal DNB pages would be subjective, in terms of what degree of modification rises to the level of making an entry apocryphal. Likewise, there are innumerable old books that contain errors, and lots of instances where newer editions correct material in older editions, but this does not a valid topic make - it is not Wikipedia's role to point out errors in old books by comparing a new edition to an old one. Agricolae (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, to have a list 'List of apocryphal biographies', we need sources that say 'this biography is apocryphal' (and preferably one that says 'these biographies are apocryphal' to indicate that the subject is notable) - we don't get to decide based on criteria that we ourselves have arbitrarily set what represents an 'apocryphal biography' and what doesn't, as would be required by such a page or list, any more than we get to decide which biographies are poorly written, which biographies contain bias, etc., without an explicit statement to that effect in a source. Agricolae (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with main Dictionary of National Biography article. It already has sections on Supplements and revisions and the change to Oxford Dictionary of National Biography including 'an ongoing programme of assessing proposed corrections or additions'. If the publication itself has changed or deleted an entry, isn't that a reliable, if rather primary, source? Cavrdg (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to DNB, no need to have a separate article. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no objection to merging in the short term. There is, I think, sufficient scholarly coverage of these items that in due course they might unbalance the main DNB article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

You say there is enough coverage of these items, but just about all of the examples currently listed are editor-generated, comparing the two editions of DNB and deciding that the difference renders the original version apocryphal - pure WP:Original Research. I don't think anyone is questioning that some of the accounts in the original DNB were problematic, that is part of the reason they did a new edition, but the fact that recent editors found errors in a 19th century compendium is hardly noteworthy, let alone worth a page identifying ones that some editor deems eggregious. Agricolae (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nomination. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dictionary of National Biography I think, but it needs to be trimmed before merging. I don't think the individual entries need separate sub-sections, a simple mention is enough. Hzh (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename -- I do not see why Kirkman Finlay should be "apocryphal". Gentleman's Magazine is as good a source as a newspaper, but his notability may be less than once through. MacDuff may indeed be a literary invention: it is a question of how far Shakespeare went beyond his sources. Brus may well be a real person but NN, save by inheritance. "Dubious" might be a better epithet than Apocryphal. However, the question is what to do with the content, which is a historiographic discussion of three items, none of which appear to have a substantive WP article. Merging to the DNB article would unbalance it; or leave a list with no adequate explanation of its significance. A mere list would provide no opportunity for the necessary historiography to appear in WPO. The criterion for inclusion may be articles in original DNB that were not carried forward to ODNB. Almost all articles were carried forward to ODNB: some were rewritten largely from scratch; others were amended; some were merged into "family" articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be rough agreement not to have a straight delete, but there is still a question to be answered on merge/keep (potentially with a rename)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Strikerforce^Talk 19:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ealing#Religion. Sandstein 15:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ealing Liberal Synagogue

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

No significant coverage, the one source listed is simply a directory of synagogues addresses. nonon notable Amisom (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ealing#Religion, as there isn't actually much detail there (in the current article) - the key couple of lines are already on the redirect target. A WP:BEFORE check didn't come up with anything that provided Sig CoV, there were a few lines in a couple of jewish year books, and a university challenge winner went there, but that seemed to be it. Synagogues fall under WP:NCHURCH which indicates that at least WP:GNG must be met, and potentially WP:NCORP - and neither is, as far as i can tell. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 13:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 13:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 13:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 13:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Hatter

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

Failing notability at WP:BIO. Prod tag removed, two YouTube videos added as references. Ifnord (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Believes he qualifies under Creative Professional where it states:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, Mr. Hatter clearly meets all four of the above as shown here with a quick Google News search [96]. ShoesssS ^Talk 08:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above. There is coverage about his association with Porsche and he has been credited with the design of notable work(s) such as Porsche 993. The editor whose username is Z0 08:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Painface

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

does not appear to meet notability requirements. Has preveiosly passed AFD per WP:Band #6, but that seemed to be based on previously unsourced/ or false information that other members of slipknot where in the band. Anders Colsefni is the only one from Slipknot in the band, and he is not notable himself. RF23 (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur this one appears to fail WP:BAND. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 23:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails NBAND and GNG. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoda Kobeissi

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

Non-notable reality show contestant. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or any other guideline. St Anselm (talk) 06:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable reality show contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a WP:BIO1E as she is only known for her appearance in the show. She may be redirected to the show, but since she was eliminated at 11th place, it is doubtful if that is even warranted. Hzh (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday Pakistan

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

A photoblog is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless meet GNG. This one fails. Saqib (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Everyday Pakistan was published in print in Gulf News and Indian Express. I searched online and found that since april its getting coverage by news organisations. Also added it after seeing that there are photoblogs up on wikipedia. I couldn’t find how to add a printed news paper link with references. And the references clearly indicate its verifiably and notability. I think it doesn’t come in deletion criteria. So keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaugustguy (talk • contribs) 20:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Theaugustguy (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

delete - fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Basically per A7; can be recreated if there are sources making it notable. For posterity, the entire unsourced content by NeonMerlin was: "Nekojishi is a Taiwanese furry visual novel where the male player character must choose one of three male felid love interests: Lin Hu, a tiger; Shu Chi, a leopard; or Likulau, a ghost clouded leopard.". Sandstein 15:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nekojishi

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

No evidence of notability. Can't find any RS coverage on google. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - bluntly speaking, I was reticent to do any great research on this while on an open router, since I felt explanations would be needed. That said, there did seem to be quite a lot of potentially reliable coverage (in the sense that not all sources writing about it were unreliable). There was also quite a lot of foreign texts that google is not great at translating, so a native speaker might have more luck. Finally, which do we think applies - WP:NBOOK or WP:NGAME? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear:- I guess NGAME? 'Visual novels' are apparently a video game genre. All I could fine were facebook, wikia, and similar quality sources. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete One-sentence stub that doesn't even claim, much less demonstrate, notability. No prejudice against an article that meets our inclusion criteria being created on this subject if some reliable coverage can be located, or withdrawing this !vote if someone actually fixes the article in the interim, but I see no reason why this shouldn't go the way of my original Utsunomiya Yoritsuna draft. I'm also a bit concerned that when the page was originally PRODded, the PROD was reverted with an apparently nonsense edit summary. @NeonMerlin: It's been six days -- why have you not gotten around to giving the page any magic love yet? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I suspect Hijiri 88 is correct - there might be sufficient notability for this to be found on the web, but it probably does breach A7 Nosebagbear (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:A7 doesn't apply to novels or games. There does appear to be some coverage in reliable sources, e.g. Hardcore Gamer. Pburka (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That entire article is 3 paragraphs, and can hardly be considered 'significant coverage.' It's more of a blog post/brief mention. Further, is 'hardcore gamer' a RS? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it "doesn't apply to novels or games" seems questionable when it explicitly covers "web content". Whether "web content" covers downloadable Steam games is an open question as far as I can tell, but it definitely covers at least some novels and games that exist only on some guy's website, which is presumably why it doesn't explicitly exclude "novels and games". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm inclined to agree with ECoV in questioning the reliability of the source: an earlier article on the same topic, by the same author for the same publication, included the bizarre claim that the game brings together Taiwanese elements and aboriginal culture (!? does he mean Australian aboriginal? if he meant Taiwanese aboriginal, that would be redundant...) and appears to have sloppily conflated new Taiwan dollars with USD, since 1,000,000 USD to crowdfund a non-animated visual novel is a phenomenal amount and would raise questions of scamming, while 1,000,000 TWD is not all that impressive despite the language the article used. (Granted, FlyingV.cc might measure things in USD, and the game might be a visual extravaganza of a gaming experience that really did cost that much to make, but...) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTdubs, the best source I could find discussing the game was this, but appears to be more about Taiwanese culture and history in general, with the reporter taking with credulity everything his interviewees said with regard to the content of the game since the game was not apparently out yet. We can't just say the game incorporates elements of Taiwanese aboriginal mythology (as opposed to being "inspired by" it, which usually means there is little to no relation) just because the game's producers said so, since (even per the report in question) said producers knew nothing about said mythology prior to doing research for the game. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 18:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knee splitter

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

This is likely a hoax. Source is not trustworthy. There is not a single scholarly or historical source that mentions this device. It is similar to the "Spanish Tickler" which had similar sources and ended up being one of the longest lasting Wikipedia hoaxes. BananaBaron (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This work and the earlier its 2012 predecessor quotes Innes 1998 and/or Kellaway 2002, and This source is from 2007. The ultimate source appears to be either Innes or The Torture Museum -- This shows it at the Museum back to at least 1999. This work explicitly dismisses Innes as "the least reliable recent source". The Museum also exhibits the chastity belt and the iron maiden and the pear of anguish, which makes their adherence to truth over sensation[97] questionable, and I could find no real use of the terms "Spaccaginocchio" or "Quebranta Rodilla" via gbooks/scholar. this non-RS takes them apart. Even if the device shown at the museum did happen to be of genuine medieval origin, there's no indication that it has individual notability (rather than being an example of a putative instrument of torture). There's no in-depth coverage of it, but hypothetically if there were more ample reliable sources found prior to the 1990s, then merge/redirect to list would be best. There's nothing stopping an article on a sufficiently notable hoax, however. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and H₃O-OH. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find a lot of things on the internet sharing "Historical methods of torture that you would not believe existed!" and many of them did not exist, but have now become sort of mainstream. Could an article for "Ahistorical methods of torture" be created for those? BananaBaron (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BananaBaron: Sure, provided that reliable sources can be found to identify them as hoaxes (for example see iron maiden). I suspect that it would be better, however, to include both historical and ahistorical ones in separate lists on the same article to help spread explicitly identified good information and to keep the incorrect ones from being added to the historical ones. Spanish tickler, btw, appears to be another example for which the Museo di tortura may be responsible (1996..., ping Premeditated Chaos, Fayenatic london) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is such a bizarre coincidence. I was reading The Better Angels of Our Nature last week, and of all things, it mentioned the Spanish Tickler - with, interestingly, an actual citation to a book older than the article. Unfortunately the book it referenced, Inquisition: A Bilingual Guide To The Exhibition Of Torture Instruments From The Middle Ages To The Industrial Age, wasn't available as an e-book, so I had to suck it up and order the actual book. Shipping is slow so the ETA isn't until late July-early August, but long story short I can check it once I get it for any information about the knee splitter. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: having a look at the Inquisition book, it looks like it may have been published by one of those torture museums that the www.documentazione.info source above debunks. The rabbit hole just gets deeper. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup -- from the cover it's the book of (what is now) the museum's 1983-1987 touring exhibition.[98]. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a waste of $15 >:C ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no reliable sources. Whoever added the single source needs to learn how to evaluate websites for reliability, as this is some guy's personal website. The article can be kept if we can find professional historians who have documented the topic, but it would need a complete rewrite. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if it existed, mere existence does not make it notable. There is insufficient evidence this was a notabel device. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a close call, and in other circumstances I would have closed it as no consensus. However, we also have to consider WP:FRINGE, which directs us to require stronger sourcing on topics that deviate from the scholarly mainstream. Specifically, if an idea is widespread but questionable, we need out-of-bubble, critical sources to conform with WP:NPOV. With that in mind, I have weighted the argument that there is a lack of in-depth scholarly coverage over that of notability because it appears in a variety of less reliable sources. – Joe (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heretic's fork

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

This is likely a hoax. Source is not trustworthy. There is not a single scholarly or historical source that mentions this device. It is similar to the "Spanish Tickler" which had similar sources and ended up being one of the longest lasting Wikipedia hoaxes. BananaBaron (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Aside from secondary derivatives such as the Leon Golub artwork, the original device is described in a biography of Galileo [99], so the article is unlikely to be a hoax. AllyD (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the same instrument as the Spanish Inquisition's "pié de amigo", described in "A Short History of the Inquisition" and in a 2002 article in The Innes Review pages 9-10 (subscription reqd). AllyD (talk) 09:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very uncomfortable keep, or perhaps a merge/redirect to a list. No weight should be given to Reston's 1994 usage as it is fictionalised history. This is evidence for 1983 -- also as "forcella dell'eretico"", which predates Golub's 1985 work, but there seems to be no evidence online for anything earlier. "La horquilla del hereje" is a 1990 work by Roberto Márquez (painter) -- no prior use of that term found. Given it's use as an inspiration and other coverage, there's enough for some kind of retention (perhaps with careful selection of tone and attribution). Are there any RS casting which cast doubt on its actual existence/use, and that can be quoted? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The material listed by other contributors to this debate needs to be compiled into the article. Even if the 1983 and 1985 items were the equivalent of a HOAX, this seems to have taken on a life of its own. The article needs to be amended to imply that the subject is at best of dubious historicity. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Presumably AllyD and H₃O + OH^- haven't found any better sources than the ones they gave (if they had, why would they omit them?), and I'm not finding any evidence of reliability-and-usefulness for any of those sources. "this is evidence for 1983" is [100], which is a catalogue of the holdings of a museum: without plenty of details, we can't assume that the authors refer to the concept discussed in this article. The Beard Book publication was already debunked as untrustworthy. The other book is published by Edizioni Savine. I've logged into ProQuest Oasis (documentation) and searched for the publisher, and I can't find a single Edizioni Savine book in their offerings (even a publisher search for savine found nothing relevant). Oasis lists millions of new and old titles in print and e, and this publisher's complete absence from their listings (even print, which the First-sale doctrine allows ProQuest to sell without publisher permission) makes me guess that ProQuest does not believe that ES titles will be of interest to academic libraries. I'd need a good deal of convincing before I believed that such a publisher could be considered reliable. EUP journals are reliable, but we need a reliable source that connects the heretic's fork and the pié de amigo before we use an EUP journal talking only about the latter. PS, I've just checked Edizioni Savine in YBP Gobi (documentation), which I generally prefer over Oasis because of its search interface and (often) more comprehensive results, and it too returned 0 results. PPS, the Golub artwork is not a reliable source for the actual existence of such a torture device; it could have been his imagination. The photo is legitimate, but the hosting museum doesn't exist anymore; museums can be operated by individuals or small groups (see the final paragraph of David Yeiser House, for example), so without evidence that this was a solid professional museum, I'm highly reluctant to trust it. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - On the fence on this one. There looks to be several mentions of this in many publications over the years, but I've yet to find a single in-depth source. It's mentioned at List of methods of torture, but not such that it would make sense to merge as that list stands. Maybe good to turn that list into something a little more substantial that can support this sort of edge case... --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: As I said in my earlier comments, enough pre-Wikipedia usage can be found to challenge any idea of this having been placed as a WP:HOAX article. However, my searches in various places have failed to locate solid sources to provide positive support for an article about a C16-17 inquisitor’s object – and even when I was confident of finding such, I was still expecting to finish by recommending merger into a list of instruments, much as Rhododendrites suggests. Alternatively, following the suggestion by Hydronium Hydroxide and Peterkingiron, the article might cover the topic as a cultural idea, such as in the Golub artwork, but would I think need to avoid original research by citing a source which had already investigated the topic in those terms. All in all, I wouldn’t be uncomfortable with a "no consensus" outcome, but can’t make a strong positive argument for retention. AllyD (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AIR Faizabad

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

Article pertains to the city-level affiliate of a wider radio channel, acting primarily as a translator station, and as such would lack notability according to WP:BROADCAST. A quick Google search does not point to notability on its own. Shobhit102 | talk 03:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shobhit102 | talk 08:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shobhit102 | talk 08:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A network affiliate broadcasts a mixture of network and local programming. Only if there is no locally-originated programming can it be dismissed as a translator. (For example, the morning show may be primarily local with some network programming for national news or a syndication tape with brief nationally-sourced features.) We keep radio stations. Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Broadcast_media and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not voting at the moment, but trying to collect sources. The station is verifiable based on [101]. It is one of the 42 North regional service stations of AIR [102]. I am not sure whether it broadcasts local programming (such as local news). I do agree with Shobhit102 that there isn't much information available. If there isn't, one option could be redirect it to All_India_Radio#Regional_services.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect. Broadcasting does not work in all countries the same way it works in Canada or the United States — in the vast majority of countries, radio and television networks do not have any such thing as local "affiliates" that originate any local programming separately from the parent network, but rather they operate exclusively as a single national service with a bunch of rebroadcasters that have no local programming variations. North American broadcasting is the exception, not the rule, to how broadcast networks operate in most countries. So the notability test is not passed just by saying the word "affiliate" — it's passed by showing reliable source evidence that the station actually originates some local programming. But there's no evidence of that being shown here at all. I'm not an expert in how to figure that out when it comes to India, but that's precisely why the claim has to be sourced, and not just asserted as possible, before it actually becomes valid grounds for an article about a radio transmitter — we've had lots of articles attempted about radio "stations" that don't meet that criteria, but actually exist solely as rebroadcasters of other services or networks, so proof that a radio station actually passes that condition has to be shown and not just presumed. NMEDIA most certainly does not exempt a media outlet from having to be properly referenced to be considered notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Will be expanding on Bearian's comment(s) as to the Indian scape shortly:)∯WBG^converse 13:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The image appears to be of scold's bridles, per [103]. clpo13_(talk) 18:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mask of infamy

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

This is likely a hoax. Source is not trustworthy. There is not a single scholarly or historical source that mentions this device. It is similar to the "Spanish Tickler" which had similar sources and ended up being one of the longest lasting Wikipedia hoaxes. BananaBaron (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage in RS. Catrìona (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I find no non-fiction references to this. The only reference in the article is so non-credible as to justify burning it with fire. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question -- where does the picture come from and what is it really a picture of, if this really is a hoax? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing a reverse image search brought up these links

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 17:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nongcun Guangbo

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

No source that can prove notability of this radio station B dash (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We keep radio stations. Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Broadcast_media and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BROADCAST, and possibly rename. If I read it correctly, Nongcun Guangbo means "rural broadcast", a general name that may not be the actual name of the radio station. Sources appear to be use Heilongjiang Country Broadcast or Heilongjiang Rural Radio depending on how you translate 黑龙江乡村广播 - [104][105], or Long Guang Country Station 龙广乡村台 [106] (this appears to be the official site, but needs checking as the article says 1020 AM while sources say 945 AM). Hzh (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We do not routinely keep every article that merely claims that its topic exists as a radio station, but rather radio stations have to meet all four of four conditions to get articles: (1) they originate at least a portion of their own programming schedule in their own studios rather than existing purely as a rebroadcaster of another service, (2) they are licensed by the relevant regulatory authority rather than operating as a Part 15 or pirate station, (3) they are actually on the air and not just an unlaunched construction permit that exists only on paper, and (4) all three of those facts are reliably sourceable. We've had a lot of hoax articles created over the years about radio stations that didn't really exist, or that falsely claimed a license they didn't have or programming they didn't produce — so the notability test for a radio station is not just "the article says it exists", but "the article can be properly sourced as meeting all of the conditions for the notability of a radio station". And this is not properly sourced as meeting any of them. NMEDIA most certainly does not exempt a media outlet from having to be properly referenced to be considered notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave links above that show that the station satisfy the conditions you mentioned, perhaps you should check those first? Hzh (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't reliable sources. They all represent the self-published content of the station and the company that owns it, and none of them represent independent coverage about it in sources independent of it. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many sources that mention various aspects of the station - e.g.[107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117] I'm not sure what there is to question about the station. Hzh (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every web page that exists with a radio station's name in it is not automatically a reliable or notability-supporting source. Almost every single one of those links is some form of primary sourcing, such as blogs, press releases from the company itself and/or organizations that it's directly affiliated with, or social networking platforms — which are types of sources that do not count as support for notability. Exactly zero of them represent the kind of reliable sourcing that is valid support for notability. Literally the only one that looks like it might be a real reliable source completely fails to mention this station at all — it's just very general coverage of a company which I'm presuming owns this station if you're adding it here, but neither it nor this article actually says that company owns this station at all. You're not showing the kind of solid sources that it takes to make a radio station notable — you're showing the kind of weak sources, mostly its own self-created content about itself, that don't make a radio station notable. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket dismissal of such diverse sources is pointless because it is not clear on what basis you are dismissing them. The first one for example looks at the station in quite a bit of detail, and I haven't a clue as to why you dismiss it. Cumulatively they do suggest that the station is significant. Hzh (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dismiss the first source because it's not a reliable source media outlet; it's a press release distribution and advertising platform on which companies can and do freely redistribute their own self-written information about themselves. Unreliable and self-created sources cannot add up to "cumulative notability"; only reliable sources can do that. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you offered no evidence that it's press release, nor for any of the others. Hzh (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And here's more [118][119][120][121] Hzh (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A person can plainly verify that it's a press release, and not real journalism in a real media outlet, just by (a) looking at it, and (b) reading our article about the website it's on. I don't need to "prove" anything that's already self-evident. And these four new sources — three glancing namechecks of its existence in books that aren't about it and one academic dissertation about the general phenomenon of rural broadcasting in which this radio station's name fails to appear at all — are not notability boosters either. You're failing to understand the very real distinction between a source that is reliable and notability-building, and a source which is not — "reliable sourcing" is not the same thing as "any web page that exists at all". Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tianjin Xinwen Guangbo

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

No source that can prove notability of this radio station B dash (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We keep radio stations. Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Broadcast_media and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actually, a full reading is not "we keep radio stations". It is "we keep radio stations if they can be demonstrated to be notable". And even the full existence is not so demonstrated here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Eastmain is incorrect about how NMEDIA works — we do not routinely keep every article that merely claims that its topic exists as a radio station, but rather radio stations have to meet all four of four conditions to get articles: (1) they originate at least a portion of their own programming schedule in their own studios rather than existing purely as a rebroadcaster of another service, (2) they are licensed by the relevant regulatory authority rather than operating as a Part 15 or pirate station, (3) they are actually on the air and not just an unlaunched construction permit that exists only on paper, and (4) all three of those facts are reliably sourceable. We've had a lot of hoax articles created over the years about radio stations that didn't really exist, or that falsely claimed a license they didn't have or programming they didn't produce — so the notability test for a radio station is not just "the article says it exists", but "the article can be properly sourced as meeting all of the conditions for the notability of a radio station". And this is not properly sourced as meeting any of them. NMEDIA most certainly does not exempt a media outlet from having to be properly referenced to be considered notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fundamentally limited in my BEFORE check by language difficulties, but the following two sources might be helpful to someone who can better use some keywords to seek the info they need. Outline of Tianjin News Communication History & China Radio and Television Yearbook. There aren't any references by name (in the bit I've seen) to let me confidently say that the existence/licenses mentioned actually belong to this specific radio station. Lots of programming mentioned but even less that gives tangential connection. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Long Guang. Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Long Guang Xinwen Wang

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

No source that can prove notability of this radio station B dash (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We keep radio stations. Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Broadcast_media and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Eastmain is incorrect about how NMEDIA works — we do not routinely keep every article that merely claims that its topic exists as a radio station, but rather radio stations have to meet all four of four conditions to get articles: (1) they originate at least a portion of their own programming schedule in their own studios rather than existing purely as a rebroadcaster of another service, (2) they are licensed by the relevant regulatory authority rather than operating as a Part 15 or pirate station, (3) they are actually on the air and not just an unlaunched construction permit that exists only on paper, and (4) all three of those facts are reliably sourceable. We've had a lot of hoax articles created over the years about radio stations that didn't really exist, or that falsely claimed a license they didn't have or programming they didn't produce — so the notability test for a radio station is not just "the article says it exists", but "the article can be properly sourced as meeting all of the conditions for the notability of a radio station". And this is not properly sourced as meeting any of them. NMEDIA most certainly does not exempt a media outlet from having to be properly referenced to be considered notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 11:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Long Guang per my argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Radio Pop. At least here the name is unambiguous. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and Bearcat's reasoning on WP:BROADCAST. -The Gnome (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against re-creating as a redirect as proposed by power~enwiki if somebody manages to straighten out the name. Randykitty (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

East Radio Pop

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

No source that can prove notability of this radio station B dash (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We keep radio stations. Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Broadcast_media and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Eastmain is incorrect about how NMEDIA works — we do not routinely keep every article that merely claims that its topic exists as a radio station, but rather radio stations have to meet all four of four conditions to get articles: (1) they originate at least a portion of their own programming schedule in their own studios rather than existing purely as a rebroadcaster of another service, (2) they are licensed by the relevant regulatory authority rather than operating as a Part 15 or pirate station, (3) they are actually on the air and not just an unlaunched construction permit that exists only on paper, and (4) all three of those facts are reliably sourceable. We've had a lot of hoax articles created over the years about radio stations that didn't really exist, or that falsely claimed a license they didn't have or programming they didn't produce — so the notability test for a radio station is not just "the article says it exists", but "the article can be properly sourced as meeting all of the conditions for the notability of a radio station". And this is not properly sourced as meeting any of them. NMEDIA most certainly does not exempt a media outlet from having to be properly referenced to be considered notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 11:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per Bearcat. We don't know the call-sign, the website link doesn't work and there are no other references, and the two-sentence article says that it actually has a different name (Radio Shanghai). I think [122] is their current website, which calls it "Pop Music Radio 101.7". No prejudice against re-creation under the correct name once sourcing that verifies the station's name and ITU code is found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think zh:動感101 is the zhwiki article on this station. No sources nor English name on that page, though. Google translate gives "Dynamic 101". If the closer can straighten out the name, a rename + Redirect to Shanghai Media Group would be better than straight deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced, throwaway text per nomination and per Bearcat's reasoning on WP:BROADCAST. -The Gnome (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven R. Donziger

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

This guy has no noteability whatosever outside of the Lago Agrio oilfield case, and the thing is mostly a puff piece that has had perpetual NPOV issues. Should be deleted or redirected to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lago_Agrio_oil_field . Jtrainor (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 11:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. This lawyer did what lawyers do, represented a client, albeit in an important case. Other than this he is non-notable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Obviously no consensus is forthcoming. Further discussion on the merge proposal can be held on the articles' talk pages. Randykitty (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Splashtop Remote

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability, promotional content. I prodded the page a few days ago; some independent sources were added, but that's not enough to write a neutral, well-sourced encyclopedia article. Some of the added sources don't strike me as reliable either. Significant parts of the content are still unreferenced or based solely on the Splashtop website. At least one of the new references is cited for a promotional statement it does not actually support. On the other hand, information about shortcomings or criticism contained in those same sources wasn't added.

I tried to look for reliable sources that would allow us to write a better article before prodding it; I couldn't find anything better than what it currently has, which is too little to establish notability. Huon (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I (not original nominator) am also nominating the following related pages because while this is a potential merge target in terms of wikipedia notability for corporations WP:NCORP will be more stringent that for the software product WP:NSOFT.

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

Also suffers from WP:NPOV but not to same blatant extent. There is an article for a discontinued product ~~Spashtop OS~~Splashtop OS of a different type which would not likely be good merge to Spashtop Remote so have chosen not to nominate.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment I questioned the prod of Splashtop Remote on its talk page as I found some credible an neutral reviews that indicated the product took a different approach to some competing products and might suit some sections. A subsequent article edit used a review non-neutrally and added multiple external links pointing to buy me or free trial links on the product website. I added a POW template to the article. I'd consider a keep Spashtop Remote with a merge in of Spashtop Inc. if article issues on the former were addressed by someone else.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Splashtop is notable because it was the first widely distributed software of its kind. It is also the first Linux that has been distributed to the masses (yes well before Android). The company and product pages may be merged though. Syced (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Syced, are we talking about the same product? According to Comparison of remote desktop software, Splashtop Remote was initially released in 2010 and is predated by dozens of other remote desktop programs, including GoToMyPC which some of the few independent sources for Splashtop Remote mention as a better competitor. If it is a "Linux that has been distributed to the masses", then our article doesn't say so. Neither do the sources. Huon (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Different software. Instant-on is the software Spalshtop will be remembered for: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=869&num=1 It was release in October 2007 and had an active community: https://gizmodo.com/5030863/splashtop-instant-on-linux-os-gets-hacked-to-do-more-tricks Syced (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both Splashtop Remote and Splashtop Inc. into Splashtop. The software has notable coverage on sites like The Verge, CNET, MacWorld, and ZDNet. The product's current name is "Splashtop," not "Splashtop Remote," so Splashtop is the most appropriate article title. Newslinger (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes. Merging those two articles to Splashtop per the suggestion from Newslinger would be the best solution Tdelchiaro (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Seems to me that there are three Splashtop-related articles which should be merged into one. Splashtop meets the criteria for notability since there are a minimum of two references. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge of Splashtop OS. At this time article has not been tagged for merge. But my real concern is the core of the product, which is fact appears to be Instant-on operating systems, will be lost in the merge and may be difficult to develop without possibly giving it undue weight. The result will likely be a poor merge ... and there are other possible merge targets for splash OS. I'm happy enough with the merge of Spashtop Inc and remote.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 11:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jude the Entropic Man

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

Non-notable comics character. No in-depth coverage and only minor in-universe appearances. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 02:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 03:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 03:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 03:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 03:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: J. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: J Dream Focus 19:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this minor character isn't worth including on the list. He's linked from about a dozen non-list articles that provide enough context without the need for an entry at the proposed target. Nothing would be lost by deleting this page. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a straightforward fail of GNG - only secondary source provided isn't reliable, and a Google reveals nothing better. Any merge would be required to remove 99% of the info and ultimately be toothless, or inviting to host this entire article on a list page. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above commentary as I also do not see the value in a merge. Aoba47 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I am closing this early per WP:SNOW.

I can understand the argument for deletion, as it's an argument I've sympathized with in the past. To summarize it, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this means that there are some topics which may be "newsworthy" but not "encyclopedia-worthy". A topic is not necessarily suitable for a standalone article even if it has received significant coverage in a lot of reliable newspapers (the WP:N lead states that an article must both meet WP:GNG and not be excluded by WP:NOT). Instead, to determine encyclopedic notability, we look at things like lasting significance and persistence of coverage.

However, with that being said, these are not things that we can necessarily determine soon after an event takes place. There is a broad consensus here that given the extent and breadth of the coverage about this topic, it is reasonable to keep this article and allow it to develop for the time being. Many editors also argued that the extent and breadth of the coverage indicates that it is more than merely newsworthy, and even those who sympathize with the deletion argument have suggested valid alternatives to deletion, such as merging to Protests against Donald Trump or rewriting the article so that it is more about the events/protests in which the balloon was flown.

For these reasons, I believe that at this time, there is no real chance that this discussion will result in any other outcome besides "keep". For the same reasons, I do not recommend starting something like a merge discussion in the weeks immediately after this discussion is closed. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump baby balloon

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

A WP:NOTNEWS flash-in-the-pan. Ridiculous article about a snippet in time. No encyclopedic value whatsoever. Fails WP:GNG over the long-term and is a WP:1E. ~~Suggest Another Believer be trouted for creating it, he knows better.~~ -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it does seem to largely be eligible for consolidation at Protests against Donald Trump#Trump Baby balloon. I don't usually edit, or read, US politics articles, so I will refrain from !voting at this time. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTOPINION. I agree it can be included in an article about the London protests but it's not notable for a stand alone article. If it was just about every individual balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade would have its own article. Blue Riband► 02:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Like Inflatable pigs on Roger Waters' tours and Pink Floyd pigs? Probably notable. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion"? Have you even read the article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 05:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This very, very easily passes GNG. So, where are the guildelines that say "passes GNG, however should be deleted because...". Because it so easily passes GNG, there ought to be a guideline argument that is really strong to cause delete. I do not see one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering the huge media coverage, controversy over permission, reactions, and uniqueness of the subject, it was reasonable to create it. So, the creator should not be trouted as suggested above. In fact, the person who suggested that is about to be trouted per WP:DONTBITETHECREATORS. Ha! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Anna Frodesiak: Just FYI, I didn't even expand the article. :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now maybe merge with Protests against Donald Trump#Trump Baby balloon in a couple weeks after the immediate coverage settles down. That said, this is an article about the object as much as the protest, so maybe could be kept later too. I'd say this is a merge discussion at best, not an AFD. Major coverage, clearly passes GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 03:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS. We are far too hasty to create article about everything Trump-related. Also, trouts are a net-negative and we should get rid of them altogether. Lepricavark (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFoRUM

There are trouting boundaries. Nobody should be trouted for trouting someone who suggested someone be trouted. That would be over the line. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I draw the boundary in a different place. Some people say "never tweet", which is probably good advice. My personal policy is "never trout". Lepricavark (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the trouter who trouted the trout suggester, I opted for goating. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe it. You just goated me! The cheek! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lepricavark, I must agree. Trouting is not very nice. Of course, speaking ill of trouting is troutable. We must tread lightly, my friend. Let's hope this goes unnoticed. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. I am sure that a Trump-related AfD will attract very little attention.

Lepricavark (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, and for being too much content to merge into Protests against Donald Trump. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Winkelvi: No need to call me out. I actually added the short blurb to the Trump protests article and created the balloon page as a redirect. Another editor expanded the redirect, so please be careful about who you trout. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I even had a hand in linking it. Plus, I almost stubbed it a few days ago. Like a ouija board, we all helped spell T-R-U-M-P B-A-B-Y. So, it exists now, and it ought to remain somewhere at Wikipedia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per norms, easily passes GNG Act345 (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per GNG and NOTNEWS is not a suicide pact for all single events regardless of cultural impact. --Fæ (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to speedy keep as 1E no longer can apply so there is no logic in keeping this open. Anything else should be discussed on the article talk page. --Fæ (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) WP:1E may no longer apply, however, that doesn't remove the valid observation of WP:GNG (long-term notability is key for an encyclopedia) as well as WP:NOTNEWS - both of which have been noted by other editors !voting delete in this AfD. (2) Speedy keep is not appropriate, either, as there are delete and merge !votes in this nom discussion. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG by a country mile and nothing in NOTNEWS prohibits articles about subjects that happen to be in the news; and especially not when they've been in the news over two weeks - and still an ongoing matter (as clearly stated in the hatnote template), so there will be more coverage adding to notability over the coming days. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 05:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily meets WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 05:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. News? It's about an artwork, no? - I had a deletion discussion about a person in WP:DE once who was considered not notable, but it was kept after all saying that if a statue is erected for this person for so-an-so-much money, he must be notable enough ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Artwork, yes. A nice viewpoint that did not occur to me. I should move from Keep to Speedy keep considering that. Thank you, Gerda. :) It's starting to snow at this AfD. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow? Not. Three deletes and two merges so far takes this AfD out of the realm of possibility for a snow close. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As artwork it's broadly similar to Rubber_Duck_(sculpture) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.187.157 (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep too much info to be merged, I think, and passes GNG. Lirazelf (talk) 09:54, 14 July 2018
Merge to Protests against Donald Trump#Trump Baby balloon a few weeks later. This is just an immediate media coverage. Though it meets GNG, it won't be last for a long time. --B dash (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Keep had avoided !voting since I felt we were reaching pile-on stage, but with a different one before I thought i'd add. Clearly far too much coverage, which started well before the actual occurence and has carried on past so WP:LASTING isn't an issue. I don't think WP:NOTNEWS would apply in any case, but technically it's a thing, though I think that would be dodging it as a method. In any case certainly notable under whichever guideline you choose to apply. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It easily satisfies WP:SIGCOV, WP:LASTING, and WP:GEOSCOPE. There is too much interesting, encyclopedic material available for this to be merged to another article. Protests against Donald Trump is already too long. The AfD nom is rife with false claims, insults, and very poor understanding of Wikipedia policy. I wish I could say it was the first time... - Mr X 🖋 11:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep Normally sceptical about such things but this has been widely reported and has historic and cultural notability. Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protests against Donald Trump#Trump Baby balloon for now. Then re-evaluate at a later date to determine WP:LASTING as it is far to soon to know that right now. Also from what I can tell there really has not been any substantial impact from it either, besides being another protest. Lastly yes it received significant coverage, but it's already dying down so WP:FART comes to mind. PackMecEng (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge some reasonable summary of the content to an appropriate section in Protests against Donald Trump (and/or to a section of a page about the London protests), just as Pussy hat redirects to 2017 Women's March#Pussyhat Project. It's just a screwy stunt and, as Bri succinctly put it, "it's not notable for a stand alone article. If it was just about every individual balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade would have its own article." – Athaenara ✉ 14:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable and of more than just news-worthines; the coverage in RS demonstrates that (and is the only thing this discussion is about). Incidentally, Athaenara it was Bri who cogently argued against the Macy's analogy. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, User:Blue Riband wrote that statement, not User:Bri. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Another Believer: I know. That's what I just said. Is that you, that you, O Echo?! :) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, but perhaps eventually incorporate this into a wider article about the visit that discusses other topics such as the protests, Trump's comments re Brexit, and so on. This is Paul (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Depending on what happens over the next few weeks, this could either be shortened and merged into Protests against Donald Trump#Trump Baby balloon (we don't need all of the fundraising and construction details if this is a one-time event) or expanded. –dlthewave ☎ 16:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Poor arguement, see WP:NTEMP--Rusf10 (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NTEMP: Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 12:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This type of article is the very reason WP:NOTNEWS exists. Ten years from now, no one is going to be writing in-depth articles about this balloon. Maybe a sentence or two in Protests against Donald Trump, that's about it.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I quite agree that "This type of article is the very reason WP:NOTNEWS exists": "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". - MrX 🖋 16:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you're misunderstanding what significant means--Rusf10 (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're clearly misunderstanding what NOTNEWS says - but if you believe otherwise, please feel free to quote the specific part you think applies. Hint: it has four criteria: "Original reporting", "News reports", "Who's who" & "A diary". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Getting news coverage for now, and will be remembered for a while. It's notable. The debate over whether it was appropriate for the mayor of London to allow it will probably continue for a long time. Ultimograph5 (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS. Minor trivia at best. --RaviC (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note also that all of the images involved are up for deletion at Commons too. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely covered by multiple RS and notable enough for a short article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this has received large amounts of media coverage. Uses reliable sources that include the New York Times, BBC, and Washington Post. Definitely meets WP:SIGCOV. Tillerh11 (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:GNG / WP:NEVENT; there's already follow-on coverage such as "Meet the brains behind the ‘Trump Baby’ balloon", Washington Post. Sufficient to anticipate lasting significance at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Trump himself commented on the balloon so it's guaranteed that it will gain more news coverage, until it pops. Nominator should read WP:RAPID. wumbolo ^^^ 20:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Protests against Donald Trump article. I like the balloon a lot actually and wish I had one of my own. But it's a flash in the pan unless someone starts mass producing these things and they fly in mass formations over the crowds of screechers.--MONGO (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely that would only be the case if it was gaining notability as a common protest method (candle lights etc). Instead it is notable as a (probably?) one-off big protest device that has gained dozens of newspapers over the course of three weeks or so. There is a time element, sure, but it can be generated by a one-off event. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a requirement; but even if it were, a Google search for (for example) donald trump balloon tshirt shows that mass reproduction of the design is now happening. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - item has lots of news coverage. At a later date, may be appropriate to merge with Protests/Criticism of Trump article(s). Squad51 (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not temporary, read WP:NTEMP. It either notable or not. Something can't be notable now, but become non-notable later, that's the very reason WP:NOTNEWS exists.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Certainly notable right now, so I guess that means it is notable. I'm just saying later on it could be merged; that wasn't a comment on notability.Squad51 (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Githan keep- Merge with July 13th London anti-Trump protest.https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-visit-london-protesters-stage-one-of-uks-biggest-rallies-in-years-1143628192.20.203.119 (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As the Trump Baby has been used in protests in Edinburgh, it cannot be merged into a text about the London protest alone. The fact is that this is not a one-event thing mime, and it seems likely that the balloon is going to tour elsewhere. --Fæ (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They crowdfunded to afford the balloon, and ended up raising more than they needed. The guy behind the idea has said that he will use the money to send the balloon on other foreign trips Trump takes. That means no 1E concerns. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes the gng. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to add something to NotNews to make people wait at least a week (tomorrow) before nominating something with this rationale. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1:Maybe people should wait a week before they write the article?--Rusf10 (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on, Rusf10. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I believe that full on. 2 wrongs don't make a kite. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi: It would have been better if you had proposed renaming the article to Protests against Donald Trump's 2018 visit to London or something like that. The simple fact of the matter is that with hundreds of thousands of attendees each of these protests is independently notable even if the balloon may not be.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This AfD is now ~~disruptive~~counter-productive, stopping the colloborative process dead in its tracks. IMO, the page should be renamed/merged to cover the much more notable protests with over 250,000 protestors. But that discussion cannot occur while this IDONTLIKEIT nomination sits here.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, not disruptive and nope, not a IDLI nom. If you want to work on the article in a collaborative manner, go for it, Coffeeandcrumbs. No one's stopping you or anyone else from doing that. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have struck my statement. I still believe it was counter-productive. There were other solutions besides AfD. I never said I couldn't edit the page, but you prevent several other more NPOV options.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course nominating an article for deletion when it is correctly tagged with {{current}} is disruptive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they used the balloon again, creating more coverage (sometime around while he was golfing, was not paying full attention to the news). This balloon is no longer a single-use event. I'd state that it will definitely be getting more use, but that goes into WP:CRYSTAL. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 03:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG and per Gatemansgc. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 03:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was tempted to support a snow close because the nom almost entirely failed to provide a relevant policy-based rationale. Instead, they spent a good amount of their rationale insulting the creator. Most editors “know better” not to do that. One-event does not apply and follow-up coverage exists, as demonstrated by above comments. The nom could/should have considered alternatives to deletion, like merging, for a subject that obviously warrants mentioning in some form.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the above commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject gaining all kinds of traction. Having lasting/knock on effects and easily within GNG. Edaham (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since when is being a 1E a rationale for deletion, Winkelvi? wumbolo ^^^ 08:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I generally don’t like recent events in WP. But, this appears destined to become an important piece of protest art. Merge is problematic as the protest article already has 300 cites, and is likely to grow larger. O3000 (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's not a snowball's chance in hell for this object (blimp/balloon) to fail notability (it's seen massive recent attention, and it's on tour, bound to experience more attention, not going to fade into oblivion).
Furthermore: This AfD nomination has a strong smell of WP:WL (i.e.: At best, the nominator is being confused on WP's means versus ends. At worst, it's an AfD created in bad faith).
-- DexterPointy (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I assure you I'm not confused about anything, WL doesn't play into the nom at all, and there's no bad faith behind the nom. It is possible and preferable to !vote without disparaging the nominator by questioning their motives - maybe you should have chosen that route, instead. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Says the nominator who felt free to disparage the person he wrongly thought had written the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable topic with ample in-depth coverage from six of seven continents, though I haven't seen the latest editions of the Antarctica Gazette. Alansohn (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I hate when wikipedians nominate articles for deletion just because they are trendy and say there will be no significant coverage after a few days, which is stupid because we won't know until we wait and see how long coverage lasts. The same thing happened with Yanny or Laurel and it's still an article. 344917661X (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mafkarat al Islam

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

Fails GNG; the one notable mention is the State Department's criticism. Article is basically unchanged since early 2007. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not verifiable. The linked blog http://jihadunspun.com/ is now about a different topic. I can find a few references to it, but they are all trivial mentions of coverage; nothing substantial about the group. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: J. Opinion is split between merge and delete, but with a consensus not to keep. So either somebody does the merger, or if this doesn't happen or the content doesn't stick, anybody can RfD the redirect. Sandstein 09:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jagged Bow

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

Non-notable comics character with only three or four appearances over 25+ years. Could merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: J but am leaning towards deletion. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 03:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 03:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 03:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 03:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: J. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - there doesn't seem any reason not to have him in the list, but the individual article fails to meet notability, as far as i can tell Nosebagbear (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's a great reason not to have him on the list. That list was never intended to be all-inclusive for characters appearing in Marvel Comics - it's purpose is to serve as a central location for non-independently notable characters to avoid multiple articles from having to explain them. This guy is a Hawkeye-based mercenary. This one is linked by four non-list articles. Nothing would be lost by deleting this content. Argento Surfer (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure your "location for non-independently notable characters" holds up - the majority of characters on the list are independently notable. That aside (since it is only tangentially relevant), while you're right in the sense no content will be lost (if properly included), so a merge isn't necessary, its presence in other articles doesn't seem to waive the benefit and argument for merging it with the list, which acts as an excellent co-ordinating location for characters both elsewhere and not. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How far did you scroll down the list before coming to the conclusion that most are independently notable? I'd say at least a quarter of the entries on these lists are the results of merges over the last 5 years precisely because they're not notable outside the fiction. This is better suited for the Marvel Wikia. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I used 4 spot check pages, usually viewed as a good amount on an alphabetical list. Obviously the odds could be against me in this specific case Nosebagbear (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The upper entries on the J list are more notable than the average. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if the character is not covered in any or very few third-party, reliable sources, then I am not sure about the value of a merge as all of the information that would be added to the list would be in-universe. I agree with Argento Surfer, though I am open to changing my vote if someone provides links to third-party, reliable sources. I tried looking, but I could not find anything. I could be missing the obvious though as my Google game is not that great right (just having Wikipedia fatigue at the moment). Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A Google search doesn't turn up anything that would support notability, and (at least according to Marvel Wikia) the character only appears five times. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'm not seeing enough in depth coverage in reliable, independent sources, to meet the notability guidelines. However, the content has value and I don't see any good reason why the information shouldn't be included in the List of Marvel Comics characters: J article, so that seems like the best option to me.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SkyGazer 512: What value does the content have? The character appears five times across Marvel continuity and has a minimal number of incoming links. As others have noted, the lists are not intended to be exhaustive and nothing of importance would be lost by deleting this article. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh, my reasoning is pretty much as simple as what BOZ said. The subject is not notable enough to have its own article, but we have an article right here containing a list of these characters. So instead of deleting the content completely, it makes perfect sense for the information in this article to be merged into the list of characters. Also, I'm not finding many of the arguments as to why we should remove the content completely convincing - I'm still not seeing what the problem would be if we merge the content, rather than have it outright deleted.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 23:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Argento Surfer will be able to put it more eloquently than I will, but from my end I'm in favor of deleting extremely minor characters like this one because of WP:IINFO and WP:MILL. The lists of characters aren't supposed to be wholly exhaustive (that's what fanwikis are for), and not every comic character needs inclusion on a list. There seems to be a recent push towards deletionism from within WP:COMICS and honestly, I'm fine with that. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I will say, is that I don't think all the information that's currently listed on the page necessarily needs to be merged. It might be best to summarize it into a short paragraph and just add that to the List of Marvel Comics characters: J page.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 23:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's the reason I have made the same argument on several other AFDs all currently going on; there is room enough for at least a handful of sentences for these characters, so we do not need to remove all information about them. BOZ (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TITANIIC

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

TITANIIC is another Replica Titanic project that does not appear to have advanced beyond the proposal stage as there is no formal announcement of a signed shipyard contract. If falls into WP:CRYSTAL as there is no clear fundraising strategy to raise the hundreds of millions of dollars. So it is very unlikely to ever get built.

It has serious WP:VERIFIABILITY citation issues as the inline citations are in Czech. Any English language online references to the project appear to be Wikimirrors. I ran the Czech web sites cited through Google translate and they appear to be interviews with the project leader on sites that have minimal fact checking and/or editorial oversight. To give one example, the machine translation quoted the project leader as claiming that QM2 designer Stephen Payne was working for his project for free. Nor have I found any independent source to support his claim of shipyard STX France having an official business partnership with the TITANIIC project. The organization also fails WP:ORG for notability as it has no coverage beyond the Czech web sites and there is no inherit notability by claiming a connection with a notable naval architect or comparison to the Clive Palmer Titanic II. Finally, there is serious WP:COI by the page creating editor whose name also appears on their web site as a staff employee. Merging this article into Replica Titanic still would not address the verifiability problems. This organization appears to be a dream by a promoter who has built a very nice web site but has no engineering team, realistic fund raising strategy, or idea who would operate the ship. Wikipedia is not a free publicity site to give legitimacy to a fund raising cause. Blue Riband► 00:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Jmertel23 (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We should eliminate this and all other articles on stillborn Titanic projects. Mere publicity is not enough and does not trump WP:CRYSTAL; neither this nor the others are about projects virtually certain to occur. We should not host such articles until an order has been placed and steel has been cut. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Kaguya (cruise ship) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Kaguya (ship). Kablammo (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If we were to use steel cut as a criteria for inclusion then an entire category, Cancelled ships of the United States Navy, would be up for AfD. Then do we do about the USS United States (CVA-58) which had its keel laid only to have it broken up when funding was withdrawn? If there is widespread notable press and industry coverage in reliable sources then it would meet WP:Notability regardless of our personal opinions of the project sponsors.Blue Riband► 02:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steel cut occurs before keel laying; sometimes by many months. (See MSC Seaside for an example.) Comments on the two Princess Kaguya AfDs linked above advocated for keel laying as the trigger for an article, which is more stringent a standard. As to notability: widespread publicity, is not the sole criterion to be met for an article to appear on Wiki; the project must be reasonably certain to take place, per WP:CRYSTAL. Kablammo (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom who deserves a well done for what looks like a very thorough WP:BEFORE check. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per tags on that page ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 03:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sources are few and information superficial it appears as having not progressed beyond an idea of a single mind --Baerentp (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is written very promotionally, and this looks like more of an idea for a project than a project that is actually underway. Tillerh11 (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. The promotional tone is not fitting. Snowycats (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Seems promotional, has not progressed much and lacks significance and reliable sources. trainsandtech (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/does-the-blue-wave-start-in-jersey/2018/07/15/db44a0b2-86e4-11e8-8f6c-46cb43e3f306_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.057e31302f61

[Smith1996-2] Smith, Nigel J. H. (1996). The Enchanted Amazon Rain Forest: Stories from a Vanishing World. University Press of Florida. ISBN 978-0-8130-1377-0.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dromomania}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanner Mayes}}