Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:10, 1 November 2018

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 October	2 November >

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 redirect to Christian. As an interim measure. There is consensus to not keep this as an article, but not consensus about whether and where to merge or redirect to. Editors can still work this out on the talk page. Sandstein 10:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xian (abbreviation)

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

Dictionary definition. We don’t normally have articles on words or abbreviations. The etymological information belongs at wiktionary. The usage for e.g. Christian or Christian (given name) belongs in those articles. None of the sources discuss the topic in depth, as required for notability – they just seem to be dictionary definitions. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Christian (given name) - nom is correct that abbreviations belong with the article on the primary name, otherwise it seems an unwarranted CONTENTFORK. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about merge to Christogram? BenKuykendall (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This stub's history goes back to a messy attempt to over-write a long-standing redirect in this edit in 2016. PamD 23:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems to have enough sources which describe the abbreviation. As a second choice, Redirect to Christian (though not the given name article), but only after adding a sourced statement in that article about the use of this abbreviation, so that readers will understand why they are there, whether they've come directly or from one of the several incoming redirects such as Xtian, Xianity, etc. PamD 23:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly has sufficient sources, that isn't the cause to get rid of it, the reason is it is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: Redundant to what? It's certainly not just an abbreviation for Christian (given name) to which you suggested redirecting it. PamD 08:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, on looking at the given name article I can see there's overlap, but not total redundancy. Christian (word) redirects to Christian: perhaps as well as an etymology section there should be an "abbreviations" section there. It's not appropriate for the abbreviation, used in a wider range of senses, to redirect to a given name, especially given the wider range of abbreviations like Xianity which are mopped up in this article on the abbreviation. PamD 09:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment if it‘s used on multiple pages then disambiguation would be appropriate. That’s actually where I noticed it, on Xian (disambiguation), so e.g. Christian and Christian (given name) could be listed there in place of the entry for this page, then this redirected to the dab page. The dab page also has a link to wiktionary for those looking for a dictionary definition.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the WP:GNG and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The abbreviation isn't notable--it exists and is used but that doesn't mean it's notable. It's sources are mostly trivial mentions or dictionary definitions, no substantive coverage appears in a search of google, google scholar, or google news so I'm not convinced it satisfies the WP:GNG let alone WP:NOTDICT. I see absolutely no reason to redirect this. It won't help readers: no one is going to type in the search bar "Xian (abbreviation)". Its deletion doesn't threaten to break pages: almost every incoming link is an alert about this deletion discussion. The only links from other articles are WXTN (in the infobox whose meaning is adequately conveyed just by the prose), Christogram (as one of other examples of a point adequately conveyed in prose), List of Christian Synonyms (as a see also link), Phonetic complement (as one of many examples), and Christ (title) (in a "see also" hat link alongside Christogram which deals with the subject more extensively). None of these pages will be harmed by the loss of this link. The topic is not notable, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, neither readers nor editors will be substantially helped by maintaining a redirect, so I'm firmly in favor of deletion. At best this should be interwiki'd to wiktionary. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 03:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Christianity. Although the abbreviation stands for the word Christian, I believe it is usually the adjective sense (of or relating to Christianity) rather than the noun sense (person who follows Christianity) that is abbreviated. A hatnote can direct users to the given name, which appears to be a less common (but extant) use of the abbreviation. As others have suggested, I don't see potential for this to grow much beyond a definition. The title is probably nonetheless useful for encyclopedia users, though. At a minimum, a redirect would be useful for the Xian (disambiguation) page. In principle I would not object to PamD's suggestion of expanding the Etymology section of Christian, but I note an ongoing discussion about moving that page to the plural form. And although it doesn't support my argument, see also Xmas#Other uses of "X(t)" for "Chris(t)-", as another possible place to merge. Cnilep (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Money (2019 film)

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

I found that the article is not well edited while creating and same source from [1] TheRedBox (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP: TOOSOON. The film has not come out yet. The film could have an article returned to Wikipedia after April 2019, when the film will have been released. Vorbee (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speed deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7ujuh (film)

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

Fails WP:NFF draftified once already but moved back with insufficient sources. In a before search only routine stuff like this [2]. WP:TOOSOON Dom from Paris (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft move back to draft for AFC as there is not much coverage now but it is released 8 November so there could be reviews in reliable sources then in which case it can be accepted at AFC. Any moves back without AFC could be reverted if this AFD closes on drafting, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: The page has already been draftified once and the creator recreated it and so effectively objected to the draftification and as such I do not think we can DRAFTIFY again hence this AfD as per WP:DRAFTIFY. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - An AFD decision to draft carries more weight as per the second paragraph of WP:DRAFTIFY: "Articles may be moved to become a draft as a result of a deletion discussion, indirectly following deletion and a request for undeletion. When performing such a move, link to the original deletion discussion and the decision to move the article into draftspace. Authors should try to understand and respond to the reason for moving to draft status, and then use the AfC submission process to have the page moved back to mainspace. The author is encouraged to ask other editors questions, or to use the Help me template." so it suggests a move back to mainspace after an AFD draftify has to be through AFC, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Ok, that makes sense, I must admit I hadn't read it like that because this "indirectly following deletion and a request for undeletion." threw me! Dom from Paris (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move Back to draft. Has quite a few notable actors so there is a large chance it will receive suitable coverage. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with User:Domdeparis initial nomination. Poorly constructed article, actors aren't especially notable, and notability is not inherited. Even if actors are notable, doesn't mean the film is. LikeMeercats (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Aloysius Institute of Management & Information Technology

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

Perhaps an independent campus but for the rest part of St. Aloysius College (Mangalore). Fails WP:GNG and insufficient notability to warrant a separate article. The Banner talk 12:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the above, a good number of the references are dead links. LikeMeercats (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG Spiderone 13:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOTDIRECTORY.∯WBG^converse 20:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. Aloysius College (Mangalore). — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ignoring socks, clear consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shiyas Kareem

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

Deprodded without rationale, and very little improvement. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Also, written in a highly promotional tone. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with User:onel5969's assessment regarding WP:NOTPROMOTION — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikeMeercats (talk • contribs) 17:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - TOOSOON at present, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 09:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfy WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Has independent sources from The Times of India, Deccan Chronicle, Malayala Manorama. He has also a cult following in social media platforms, they are known by the name "Shiyas Army". 137.97.79.204 (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC) comment - SPA IP with only 4 edits, only here and on the subject article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article already has a reference and significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, i agree that the article surely need some improvements. satisfy WP:NACTOR as he represented a country in World level competition, participated in popular television reality show and become the finalist as second runner-up, acted in movies and short films etc. ( Hbinu (talk) 11:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC) ) Struck per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hbinu. – Athaenara ✉ 04:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is popular in kerala and middle east countries (37.245.239.159 (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Comment The 137.97.79.204 and 37.245.239.159 users both edits are only on this page related. Could be a sockpuppet situation, I will tag all the people who participated to see. @CAPTAIN RAJU: @Onel5969: @Davey2010: @Spiderone: @LikeMeercats:. Also the first delete which was not signed was by LikeMeercats as seen in the edit history. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree about the possible socking. I opened a sockpuppet investigation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and thanks Onel5969 for starting an SPI, My spidey senses tell me this is all one editor so yeah thanks for doing that. –Davey2010^Talk 13:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there's a handy tag for those, Template:Single-purpose account. – Athaenara ✉ 06:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was edited by some random user that made the article to appear in promotional light. Being the creator of this page, I have made the necessary deletion and corrections with proper references, and I believe that this should be sufficient to keep the article factually relevant. ( Emissaryj (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emissary j (talk • contribs) [reply]

Delete or redirect to Bigg Boss Malayalam. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. At most, this is WP:BLP1E, but finished 3rd so there is no lasting notability from this. Ravensfire (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The article has been further updated with recent events(with references) that has happened in Shiyas Kareem's television career. ( Emissaryj (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emissary j (talk • contribs) [reply]

You have already voted Keep, so to avoid confusion I have struck out your previous Keep. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and fails NACTOR and GNG, I redirected this page to Bigg Boss Malayalam per WP:ATD-R as I found it non-notable by WP standard but it was removed by the creator so I'm afraid this will continue. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The redirect to Bigg Boss Malayalam would only result in a trivial mention of Shiyas Kareem in the article. This article is dedicated to the individual and includes his career and other achievements which would not be available on the page Bigg Boss Malayalam.( Emissaryj (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emissary j (talk • contribs) [reply]

Can you specifically show how this person meets WP:NACTOR? Not just saying they meet it, but going point by point and giving specific examples of how they meet each point please. Ravensfire (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes references that satisfies WP:NACTOR as per the following points;

1. The career section covers his filmography and his participation in television shows (Satisfies condition number 1 in WP:NACTOR).

2. The 'External links' section includes a link to his fan page which signifies that he has a large fan base (Satisfies condition number 2 in WP:NACTOR).

3. His participation and achievements at the Mr. Grand Sea World competition in 2018 shows that he has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment (Satisfies condition number 3 in WP:NACTOR).Emissary j( Emissaryj (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emissary j (talk • contribs) [reply]

1. Sources fail to show significant roles in multiple shows. Minor parts don't cut it. Fails Criteria 1.

2. Linking to a fan club is not a way to show significant fan base - you need multiple reliable sources from WP:SECONDARY sources. Fails criteria 2.

3. Competing at a show is not unique, prolific or innovative, especially when they don't even win.

So sorry, no way is WP:NACTOR met or even close to being met. Ravensfire (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Having entered the show Bigg Boss Malayalam on the 14th day, he went on to reach the final. This represents that he had a significant role in the 100-day show. He is a model who has recently started acting in movies, so his acting roles might not have been significant enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR, but his significant presence in the television show Bigg Boss Malayalam does satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER.

2. Under the list of references, the reference number 9 is an article that describes the fan following Shiyas Kareem has. The article is in Malayalam. I am not sure if you would be comfortable trusting an auto-translated article, but for verification you can cross-check with an admin who has proficiency in reading Malayalam. This should satisfy WP:CELEBRITY.

3. Competing at a show might not be unique, but representing a nation at an annual international event can be considered unique, particularly if you are the first person from the state of Kerala to do so. This should be enough to satisfy WP:NMODEL, along with references that cite that he has been a professional model since 2010.Emissary j( Emissaryj (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC) )[reply]

Re:#2 – Malayalilife.com doesn't seem to be a reliable source to me. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS Malayalilife.com is a website that primarily focuses on entertainment and lifestyle news of the people of Kerala. Most of the sources that are usually considered reliable might not cover every event that happens in the state. Being a regional news, Malayalilife has covered the events that occurred(mentioned through reference 9 in the article), which the other major sources such as Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhumi, Times of India, The Week etc. might have not been able to furnish in their articles.Emissary j( Emissaryj (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC) )[reply]

Delete based on notability concerns and history of sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asoke K. Talukder

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

Very promotional article, without a single in-depth source. Searches turned up virtually zero in-depth coverage so fails WP:GNG, and also does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. He's accomplished, simply not notable. There also might be a COI issue with the editor who created the article, since the photo in the article was their own work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are correct about the COI and will warn the article creator as a prelude to possible draftifying. Deb (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Deb - I thought about draftifying, but in my WP:BEFORE didn't really find enough to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The creator seems to be a very occasional editor. If we draftify it and he doesn't improve it, it will be deleted after a certain length of time in any case. Some of his other creations don't bear much scrutiny either. I'll leave it a couple of days before deciding what to do about this one, just in case someone else comes up with some better content. Deb (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 09:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG as well as NSCHOLAR, comprehensively.∯WBG^converse 09:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Only no consensus because there still aren't any reliable sources in the article itself... Sandstein 09:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mina Cvetković

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

Cvetković is not a relevant or notable person. The only reference shown does not show any relevance and does not comply with WP:SIGCOV. Vercelas (quaestiones?) 18:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. Cvetković is a world-class model, as can be evidenced from
- "Instagramming Model Mina Cvetkovic Loves U2, and We Love Her for It". Vogue. July 20, 2015. (fully about her)
- "Mina Cvetkovic Transforms at Rick Owens". New York Times. March 3, 2016. (photo gallery)

as well as several articles from Serbian press:

"Na ljepotu ove Nišlijke niko nije ravnodušan". Nezavisne novine. July 21, 2015.
"ELLE STYLE AWARDS: Dobitnici priznanja za 2016!". Kurir. November 10, 2016. (best model of 2016 award from Elle magazine)
"(FOTO) NIŠLIJKA ZALUDELA HOLIVUD: Model Mina Cvetković zasenila je i Adrianu Limu". Kurir. February 17, 2016.
"Nišlijka muza Dolčea i Gabane". Blic. May 21, 2012.
"Ekskluzivni intervju: Lice sa naslovnice". Harper's Bazaar Serbia. November 23, 2015. (interview, appears on cover photo)

No such user (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the last link, appear only on a cover of a known magazine does not grant immediate relevant. Please note that this reference just names it and this is less than a journalistic note. --Vercelas (quaestiones?) 16:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to know much Serbian to figure out that "Ekskluzivni intervju" means "Exclusive interview". While an interview may not be very useful as a source for facts (except for her own statements and opinions), it certainly helps establish notability and SIGCOV. A respectable magazine does not perform "exclusive interviews" with little-known people.
Actually, she was featured in over a dozen issues of several fashion magazines, see http://www.designscene.net/female-models/mina-cvetkovic for the full list. I'm not into the fashion scene at all, but I the sheer range of sources I found negates your statement that she is "not a relevant or notable person". No such user (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For more prestige possess a publisher, an interview should only be used as a source to support a statement, not to demonstrate relevance. An interview is merely the publication of someone's personal objections. Wikipedia is not a directory or annex of any model or similar. Probably dozens, or hundreds of models, mostly devoid of enciclopedic relevance, have posed in such magazines, such as Elle. --Vercelas (quaestiones?) 23:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 18:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reading the article says delete, the refs above say keep. Szzuk (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 12:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American International Health Alliance

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

Article is based almost entirely on primary sources. A search for valid secondary sources comes up empty. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Such secondary coverage as there is seems to be in the African media, and some behind paywalls. I think we should be cautious about deleting articles about organisations active in places where they dont get reported. Rathfelder (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Note to User:Aoziwe, it's not useful in a deletion discussion to assert that sources exist, but not cite any of them. Given that you didn't provide any specific sources, I was forced to discount your argument. If you think you can find sources (and are willing to commit to doing the work), let me know and I'll restore this to draft space for you to work on. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will Fowles

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

Non-notable multiple-time failed political candidate. Very surprised the article has lasted as long as it has. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but not (only) as a (as yet unsuccessful) politician. I was surprised about how much independent general referencing about the subject there is. This person has a finger in many pies (multiple different events) and gets more than just mentions for them. There is sufficient WP:NEXIST to satisfy WP:GNG, even if likely to fail any specific NSUBJECT. There is readily available material to add to the article. Aoziwe (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but open to convincing. I've thought about nominating this before, but that Age article - which is definitely in-depth - always gave me pause. But then I was surprised by how little else there was in the way of serious coverage, so I'm inclined to think this is a straightforward case after all. The MCC business provoked a bit of coverage but there's really not much else that I saw. I would like to see the sources @Aoziwe: mentioned above - I didn't find much that was useful, but perhaps I wasn't looking in the right places. Frickeg (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect from what you have written that we are looking at the same material. Yes there are not many sources which by themselves standalone as indepth material in their own right, but I felt the lesser material when accumulated was sufficient to keep the article and indeed add to it in some areas. There is certainly a lot more material than many other articles rely on. Aoziwe (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO / WP:NPOL; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Bastien

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

Page was created by subject and by those personally connected to subject. Has not demonstrated they are discernibly notable and is instead purposefully pushing his own business. Larsfisherman (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable business person who has founded non notable businesses. The article just says he founded some businesses. Too few sources. Does not satisfy WP:BIO. 2 of the 4 sources are for his manage proposal and not his business activity. WP:TOSOON. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Eppink

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

Sourced almost entirely to his CV or own work and fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Unambiguous WP:PROMO, previously BLPPRODed but recreated by the same SPA, blanked and recreated after AfC submission was rejected for copyvio, article creator continues to add copyvio text to the article despite being reverted multiple times. It is a waste of editor and administrator time. Bakazaka (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBIO. No coverage in independent reliable sources. Sources are all self-published. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much promotion here. Qualitist (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Cassell

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

Shameless self-promotion by single edit creator. Article is an orphan, perhaps emphasising how after almost 3 years it still hasn't found a place or integrated in here (because it doesn't belong on an encyclopaedia).

The subject is a pick-up artist (teaches dating to men) of some degree of success within this field, but not enough to justify a page - i.e. doesn't pass GNG. There does not appear to be significant coverage about him in reliable, independent publications. There's some stuff on esoteric sites dedicated to that field, and there's some stuff including an article he penned in a publication of note, but that's a one-off of him commenting on something that happened in that was noteworthy. overall i don't think any of them standalone can be considered significant nor is the sum of scraps anywhere near something significant

As an example of someone else in the industry (who doesn't have a page, perhaps because of notability issues too), here's a comparison of metrics which I appreciate isn't quite how notability/GNG works, but does help paint an overall picture
Kezia Noble vs Johnny Cassell
facebook fans: 266,228 vs 19,855
twitter: 15,500 vs 9,360
youtube subscribers: 391,920 vs 11,932

that should illustrate that the subject is several status levels below a peer from the same industry who has not yet been considered notable by any editor enough to warrant an article. The only reason this joke of an article (the weaselly content) exists is because someone with no connection or interest in this encyclopaedia made a one-off 'contribution', most likely to promote the subject and give it the illusion of importance and independent recognition.

Rayman60 (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 22:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11. I requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (@coffman, the speedy was never going to stick—the article makes too much of a claim of significance for its subject). There is, however, an absolute dearth of reliable coverage in either news outlets or literature. Passing mentions, press releases, directory-style entries, and generally unreliable sources such as tabloids and blogs, all insufficient to qualify as either in-depth or persistent coverage from the independent, secondary reliable sources that are necessary to pass the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. ——SerialNumber54129 09:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that individual doesn't need to be redirected to event via both BIO1E but also occurrence in more than one notable event. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kenichi Hirose

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

Should be a redirect to Tokyo subway sarin attack#Kenichi Hirose. Classic case of WP:BIO1E. But an editor is insistent on continuously recreating the article. So here we are. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reasons are as following:
The WP:BIO1E said that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Besides, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. I believe this article meets such rules. Tokyo subway sarin attack is highly significant, Hirose also plays a very important role in this event. I understand WP:OCE is not a good idea. However, participants in 9/11 such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Mohamed Atta is even related with a featured article Jihad (song). To be honest, it's a little bit irony.
Hirose was involved in a series of events, not only the Tokyo subway sarin attack, but also the secret assault rifles production by Aum Shinrikyo (ja:自動小銃密造事件) and production of other weapons in Aum Shinrikyo. Please see this and this

I understand that many editors can't read articles in Japanese or Chinese, but a lack in articles/documents in English doesn't mean this article doesn't meet the notability standard. --クオン·翡翠·鵺鳥·十姉妹·夜啼鳥 15:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Kuon.Haku's point regarding language barrier is a reasonable one. While it will stop us from understanding or getting as much context as possible, we should strive to include as much information in English as possible. LikeMeercats (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:BIO1E and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
restore redirect, WP:ONEEVENT. Unless the article is significantly expanded, topic is entirely covered in redirect target.TheLongTone (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Involved in a series of events in Aum Shinrikyo. Significant and continuing coverage even with English sources alone. Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because his activities in the years before the subway attack are notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Willing to provide a copy if anyone wants to merge anything from it into WWDC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stump the Experts

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

There doesn't seem to be nontrivial coverage of this event in reliable sources. At most, reliable sources may mention it in passing as part of a discussion of WWDC, or provide some links to videos of past sessions. —Kodiologist (t) 14:38, 1 November 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 November 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - company gab session, no refs. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Howes

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

Unsourced article on an actor who doesn’t seem too noteworthy. No sources to support his birth or death. Merely serves as a rundown of some of his appearances. Rusted AutoParts 14:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the appearances shown in his IMDB list, only one (in "There Will Be Blood") appears to be at all notable, and even there it is more a peripheral role than a starring one. Doesn't look like he meets WP:NACTOR. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia does not aim to be a comprehensive directory of actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing Is Free

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

|I favour redirecting this to Justin Broaderick discography & did so; this was reverted with a claim that 'articles from Exclaim, Stereogum, and Fact that focus on the EP.' None of these are anything more than notices that this recording has been released. Nothing approaching any in-depth coverage. TheLongTone (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Fact, Stereogum, The Quietus, Exclaim!, and Metal Injection all found the EP notable enough to write about. These articles offer enough substance to support a section beyond a lead. What's more, this is an EP, not an album, so the requirements for notability shouldn't be as steep. It's my opinion that these sources are non-trivial. Note: I started the article a year ago. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 14:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CelestialWeevil: - not a response to your primary argument, but why should an EP have gentler notability requirements than an album? Nosebagbear (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: I read on some rule page once that older albums require less sources to be notable than newer ones (sorry, I don't have the link right now). I figure smaller albums (EPs) could be treated the same way, but with size instead of age. Maybe not, though. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 19:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CelestialWeevil: Are you talking about WP:NALBUM? – The Grid (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Grid: I wish I was, but I don't think so. I'll have to look further. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 14:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: just because Broadrick says it's an EP doesn't make it one. At nine songs and 55 minutes, this would be classified as an album under the chart rules of any country and it should be treated as such. Richard3120 (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: Good point! I'm inclined to agree with you. I wouldn't call it an EP, regardless of it being on the cover and it being referred to as such. But it is, so what can ya do. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 14:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: It's definitely not an album either though, since every article I've seen refers to Rise Above as the official second album. Nothing Is Free is a compilation of tracks that originally weren't intended to sit on an album together. PalmTreeEden (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment My point is that the souces don't write about this ep. They mention it, presumabably because they can find nothing of any interest to say about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone (talk • contribs) 08:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because they can find nothing of interest to say about it? Sorry, but I can't buy that. I don't want to talk about the musical content here, it doesn't seem relevant, but there could be so many more reasons. Lack of time, lack of readership interest, an over-saturation of similar material. And even then, like I said, they write enough to warrant more prose than just a lead. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 14:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can it at least be demonstrated that the EP meets one of the criteria listed in WP:NALBUM? Note that criteria 1 would mean anything outside of reviews of the EP. – The Grid (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Grid: Sorry, but I'm not seeing where criterion 1 precludes reviews. The references are reliable (I verified with WP:RSMUSIC), not self-published, and independent from the musician. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 17:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I got a few more references from Resident Advisor and Crack Magazine now. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 17:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another update, User:PalmTreeEden has added some reviews. I don't really think these are necessarily reputable sources, but someone might know better than me. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 19:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone: @CelestialWeevil: All three sources seemed unbiased (not promotional) enough to me. They all have a large following in the thousands on their Twitters so they aren't exactly fan blogs. PalmTreeEden (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PalmTreeEden: Right. I appreciate your help, by the way. I think the main issue is establishing credibility of the authors. Honestly, though, I don't know how to do that. I've never tried before. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 19:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So there are a few reviews (there's actually another here) which easily pass Sig Cov. A couple fail independent (or at least, I'm fairly confident in that), Freq is an interesting example. It doesn't have any direct bias (since it generates no revenue), that said, whether it has sufficient editorial control to be reliable, I don't know. BrooklynVegan (and Freq) are fairly big - it's not just some random unreliable blogs. But whether they are sufficiently reliable to count, I'm just not sure.

I added that one and moved down the Crack Magazine quote since it's de facto a review too. PalmTreeEden (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think there is now enough interview and review coverage from multiple independent sources to make the subject notable. PalmTreeEden (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Between redirect and keep. Sandstein 20:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013 New Haven Line Power Outage

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

The subject of the article may not meet the notability guidelines, it is not blatant enough to warrant a CSD. Kb03 (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Haven Line/weak keep. This was an incident requiring intervention by a member of U.S. Congress, and had minor lasting impact. As such it was barely notable, and should probably be redirected. Pinging @Smellyshirt5:, the article's creator, and @RoySmith and Pi.1415926535:, who also discussed this matter at Talk:New Haven Line. epicgenius (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC) Edit: a few words. epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Newsworthy, yes; notable, no.TheLongTone (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)#REDIRECT [[]][reply]

It is certainly notable as it effected the busiest rail line in the United States, at 125,000 daily week day riders, reducing service for 12 days, warranted a Congressional Hearing where the MTA's president was held accountable, and includes interesting technical details and findings from a public report that epicgenius and his associates seem to enjoy removing and hiding. Thanks. Smellyshirt5 (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Before this article was created, I was thinking that a spin-out might be a reasonable way to resolve the debate on the talk page. I'm not really convinced this is notable at all, but having it spun out into a side article is certainly preferable to putting this level of technical detail in the main article. To do so would be WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. Compare, for example, the coverage we have of an earlier event which inflicted a similar scale outage: The Great Blizzard of 1888 blocked the rail line in Westport, between the Saugatuck and Green's Farms stations. It took eight days to restore service, as snow was dug out by hand.. That's all we say about that. Why should this event require anything more than a similar two-sentence mention? Railroads are constantly having technical problems. Power outages. Fires. Derailments. Crashes. Not every one is so notable that it requires this level of detailed coverage in an encyclopedia. But, as I said, if we are going to cover it, at least don't clutter up the (already overly detailed) main article. I have no particular objection to a redirect, but given that it's an unlikely search term, I can't argue that it's necessary. Certainly, merging this back into the main article would be inappropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak arguments for political censorship: @RoySmith, why is it so imperative for you and your associates to remove the findings of a public report that impacted the busiest railroad in the United States, at 125,000 daily weekday riders, in the modern era, for 12 days. Not to mention that the MTA has consistently been in the news for poor maintenance and service, which makes this an even more important and enlightening issue for public consumption. The Wikipedia platform is meant to enlighten, not hide. Thanks for your concerns for the laymen.Smellyshirt5 (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not political censorship, but this is better than having excessive detail in the main New Haven Line article. And please don't ram your argument through. It's not likely to convince people to support keeping this article. epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RoySmith and explicitly not per Smellyshirt5 who is attacking all the wrong people in the interest of teh frees peechs. The information on the incident is encyclopedically useful, and RoySmith's statement here is a pretty good explanation of why a merge is not preferable. It's a thing that happened, it was noteworthy on a regional scale (maybe national considering it was investigated by an agency of the US government), has had a lasting (albeit minor) impact, and is sufficiently well-documented. Just for the hell of it I'm also going to throw in that I like it, having been around for the 1995 Russell Hill incident and lived through the 2003 Northeast Blackout. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though the background section is a little weak and could use some improvement, it definitely seems like a notable event that affected many people and attracted mass media coverage, and I think the article has potential to be an informative one with some improvement in the background section and perhaps some additional detail on the measures Metro-North took to provide alternative service. TITANOSAURUS 00:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Passes wp:gng easily. Markvs88 (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided but waving over redirection because this (and I'm sure it has been) is a common event, it happens in part in the UK but most of them don't reach national news. This would benefit being in the New Haven Line article as per EpicGenius as in its current form it doesn't warrant an article of its own. Nightfury 15:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Note adding because of Senator's request for hearing.Night fury 15:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The content is clearly significant, and as RoySmith explained, a merge is impractical. Smartyllama (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In this case, disputes at the New Haven Line page, length of that article, and WP:SIGCOV of this particular power outage justify a separate page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'm going to assume this is notable/that reliable secondary sources exist (other users have noted there may have been media coverage) from the consensus above so I'm not going to vote delete, but the sourcing is terrible and I think the article fails WP:GNG on its face. I'm not sure any of the sources are truly independent of the incident, several are obviously primary, and I think this can be easily written up concisely in the main article. SportingFlyer talk 05:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose redirect as WP:UNDUE. WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. This outage received intense regional coverage, which continued for a couple of years. I just added a series of sources to the page from which article can be expanded. The fact that the page needs improvement is not a reason to delete (or effectively delete via redirect,) since sourcing, including SECONDARY sourcing does exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand the WP:UNDUE link. All of the new articles are by the same author in the same time frame, which was all during the outage. I'm also finding this topic incredibly hard to search for on WP:BEFORE grounds. It's not obvious on its face that this is a notable event to me, or that it can't be covered in a couple sentences on the main page. SportingFlyer talk 11:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thinking out loud I wonder whether the thing to do might be to broaden this article into a page about maintenance issues in the 2010s.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- this event was widely covered and affected the USA's busiest rail line. It appears to pass WP:GNG. I am not against a redirect if consensus prefers that instead. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus on what should be done with Upanayana, but this article is found to be unsuitable for the encyclopedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Nanak and the Sacred Thread

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

An essay outside of Wikipedia scope — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if this is not deemed notable for a standalone article, could some words about this story be added to Upanayana? Coolabahapple (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One can expand Upanayana if they feel the need for doing so. Lorstaking (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some examples of the meaning of the 3 strands of the sacred thread could be added to the "Significance of the yajñopavītam, sacred thread" section of Upanayana, but otherwise most of this topic is covered there. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Sharma

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Notability has not been demonstrated. Hitro talk 13:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. I looked for significant coverage and failed to find anything that would add up to WP:GNG. Yilloslime (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ndaba Mandela

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

Subject is not notable independent of his grandfather, Nelson Mandela. Provided coverage consists of interviews with the subject on the topic of his grandfather (including a book that the subject wrote about Nelson Mandela, which does not appear to be notable enough to qualify the subject via WP:NAUTHOR). Coverage online appears to be more of the same, although I was able to find this coverage [3] in the NY Daily News which attests that the subject won an award of dubious notability and was profiled as part of a BET feature. I was able to find BET's coverage [4], which appears to be almost entirely an interview with the subject and is thus not sufficiently independent to satisfy notability guidelines. He's cooperated with celebrities to promote AIDS awareness, but coverage of Mandela in relation to this is not in-depth. He's also the founder of the Africa Rising foundation, which does not appear to be notable (note: there are several unrelated organizations that are also named Africa Rising). In sum, current coverage does not appear to pass WP:GNG–there's a lot of smoke here due to his connection to Nelson Mandela and his eagerness to defend his grandfather's legacy in the public eye, but no flame. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not inherited, but I believe there is coverage in reliable sources with regards to his campaigning on AIDS. There is a lot of significant coverage about his life growing up with Nelson Mandela, which although is clearly related to Nelson Mandela they are specifically about Ndaba's own experiences. I think this makes them notable in their own right. Polyamorph (talk) 21:23, 31 October 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 November 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Notability is not inherited. User:Polyamorph Would you still think his work is 'notable' or meetings WP:GNG without the relation to Mandela? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikeMeercats (talk • contribs) 17:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my comment, the significant coverage about their own life, even though it is intertwined with Nelson Mandela's, make them notable in their own right. The important thing is there are reliable sources giving this person significant coverage. It's not someone who just happens to be Nelson Mandela's grandson and has kept out of the public eye, in which case I would agree that notability is not inherited. There is sufficient coverage to satisy WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The two interviews, one from The Independent and the other from BET, are sufficient to establish notability. Before you all start going on about whether interviews are reliable sources keep in mind that that's not what we're talking about here. No doubt interviews are not RS for facts about a subject, but they are perfectly reasonable indicators of a subject's notability. Why are these mainstream high quality sources interviewing this guy if he's not notable? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Media sources generally don't follow WP:NOTINHERITED and are more than happy to interview people because they are related to more notable people. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. So? The point is that regardless of whether media sources follow any particular WP policies, if they choose to interview people, especially if more than one of them choose to interview people over time, then those people are notable. We don't worry about why sources are choosing their interview subjects, only that they are choosing them. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Independent interview is primarily the subject talking about Nelson Mandela, so I'm not sure how much that counts. You may have a point about the BET interview, but I'd like to see what other editors have to say as well. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this person had kept out of the public eye, then sure, notability would not be inherited. But they are the subject of numerous reliable sources for their own experiences and charity work. So they are notable in their own right. Polyamorph (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is an interesting discussion of WP:NOTINHERITED, I had to go re-read a policy I thought I knew. To the point that I found the line "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. [My underlining]. There is sufficient coverage across the articles, even if you filter out everything specifically said by the subject. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel Bible College & Seminary (Troy, Alabama)

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

For-profit educational organization, not accredited by the United States Department of Education judging from a DAPIP search, but accredited by Transworld Accrediting Commission International (article deleted in 2008 under G11), one of the many unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations in the US. The article was initially sourced entirely to the organization's own web-page and searches for sources brought about local mention only.
Based on these observations I PRODed the article:

Historically there have been multiple colleges by this or similar names, we have already e.g. articles about Bethel Bible College and Bethel Bible College, Guntur. This college in Alabama, founded in 2012, does not appear to be notable under WP:NCORP.

DGG dePRODed the article with the reason:

Can be moved to distinctive title; we almost always keep colleges at afd, tho I'm not sure about this one.

I have since added this source, an interview in the local Troy Messenger; article still fails NCORP. Sam Sailor 11:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 11:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 11:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 11:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "We almost always keep colleges" is outcome based and does not address the notability issues at hand.
I could not find an independent source covering the college except for the Troy Messenger source; to assert notability we need multiple independent sources. BenKuykendall (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we keep most colleges because they are accredited and impactful. This is a local Church that put together a prgram to give degrees in divity, within a tradtion that does not put a premium on standards of education for ministers. If we had more 3rd party sources it would be keepable, but not every fly by night basement seminary is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eighties Matchbox SOAD Tour Sampler

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

Non-notable promo sampler album. --wooden superman 11:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Eighties Matchbox B-Line Disaster as there doesn't appear to be anything more than mentions on the album. Thus notability is not demonstrated. As an aside, @Woodensuperman: - do you have anything against it being a redirect to the band as the logical link? Nosebagbear (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No strong objection, although it doesn't seem to be a likely search term as it appears to be a fabricated name for the sampler. --wooden superman 11:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, but as always, redirects are cheap Nosebagbear (talk)

The title of this article is wrong because that is not the name of the record. So a search for that false title is certainly unlikely. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do realize that redirecting to the band's article is now the accepted procedure for non-notable albums, but see my comment above on the actual title of the record. The article under discussion here has a title that is unlikely to be used as a search term because it's not the item's name, thus making a redirect nonsensical. Therefore my recommendation is to simply delete due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. In effect, the record is a one-time curiosity for fans that has not been noticed by the rest of the world. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eighties Matchbox Original Two Track Demo, which has a false title too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The album doesn't appear to be notable. This title doesn't seem useful to retain as a redirect. --Michig (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to All India Trinamool Student Congress. Sandstein 16:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trinankur Bhattacharya

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Student and local politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics. Hitro talk 10:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Trinamool Student Congress - there is a reasonable amount of coverage (though not in the most reliable of sources), however since he is supposed to be notable via a political route he has to satisfy NPOL. NPOL clearly isn't met and thus a redirect to the group seems more reasonable than a delete. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems to be the best option Spiderone 14:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Triple zero. Consensus is definitely against Keep, but per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP, I find that power~enwiki's suggestion to redirect is best suitable here. (non-admin closure) Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

000s

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

This, well, it's unclear what it actually is, a disambiguation?, is filled with things which are not called the "000s" in reliable sources. In fact, "000s" seems to be used almost exclusively to mean "thousands", as in "in 000s" in tables or charts. Looking for e.g. "lived in the 800s" yields some results[5], but looking for the similar "lived in the 000s"[6] gives no results at all. This article seems to be based on some OR extrapolation that if we have 800s or 900s or 1000s, we should have a page for "000s" as well, but I think we shouldn't actually, as it would be a novel invention, not a common expression. Fram (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing links as originally linked at Special:Permalink/864450916 Cabayi (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's used with thousands such as 1000s, 2000s and 3000s. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 13:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence for this? "Born in the 00s" gives 63 results[7]: "born in the 000s" gives no results at all[8]. I doubt it is used for most of the entries on that page (has anyone really ever used "000s" for "The century from 0-99 almost aligned with the 1st century.", even ignoring that the century starts at 1 and there is no year 0?), so if it is only used for the 2000s (which remains to be seen), it could be a redirect to that at most. Fram (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contrary to BrandonXLF's claim, a search of the wiki shows that 000s is only used as a method for neatly tabulating numbers in multiples of 1000. I'm not seeing a usage in relation to years. This article creates its own ambiguity in need of diambiguation. In its lack of usage elsewhere it verges on WP:A11, something made up. The same argument holds for 000s (century). Cabayi (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi, That's metioned first on the page. Doesn't the argument hold for 0s and 00s aswell? – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 13:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BrandonXLF, "00s" is actually in use to refer to at least the eearly 2000s, as in "music of the 00s". "000s" however is not in use for this. No one says "music of the 000s" or "books of the 000s", but the "00s" versions of these is relatively common. Fram (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BrandonXLF, if you nominate them I'll consider them & !vote. You've been around the block enough times to know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't work. Cabayi (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- This is a particularly useless disambiguation page. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are certainly useful things to direct people to at this page, but I'm not sure the present ones are the best. The 000s play an important role in the Dewey System, for instance List_of_Dewey_Decimal_classes#Class_000_–_Computer_science,_information_&_general_works. I have found a few instances of people using 000s to refer to thousands over the internet, including some in WP:RS such as [9] to refer to thousands of people. I am dubious, however, about 000s referring to the millennium/century and would like evidence of this from Brandon. JZ CL 22:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Triple zero - an existing disambiguation page that covers any of the theoretical suggestions for possible topics here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Triple zero is the best solution. The points on the existing page are pretty far fetched. Add the Dewey system to Triple zero Legacypac (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page disambiguates between a number of completely unambiguous things, none of which are called the "000s". No one calls the decade 1000-1009 CE the "000s" (if anyone refers to this decade at all). No one calls the century 1000-1099 CE the "000s" either. I can see how "000s" could mean "milenia", as in the 0000s, the 1000s, the 2000s, ..., but I have never seen this usage; plus we already have the page List of millennia.
I'm neutral towards redirecting to Triple zero. It seems like all the usages on that disambiguation are for "000" and not "000s".
The usage as "In fact, "000s" seems to be used almost exclusively to mean "thousands", as in "in 000s" in tables or charts." is plausible; however, this is a dictionary definition, and should not have an article.
Someone should AfD 00s for similar reasons. BenKuykendall (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After some internal dithering I think BenKuykendall's reasoning is correct. Almost none of the things currently on it belong and the only remaining bit would appear to be fail DICDEF - and the fact you don't need a DAB for 1 meaning - or even two. I also don't think triple zero, as it stands, covers the 000"s" - it would need a change in title and content to do so, thus a redirect seems unsuited. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would agree with the arguments put forward by BenKuykendall and Nosebagbear. I do not think the page is a useful one and I cannot really see some one searching for 000s when they are looking for any of the articles it lists. Dunarc (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus about whether this topic is redundant to Entomophagy. Editors can still try to find consensus about how to cover these topics on the talk page(s). Sandstein 10:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insects as food

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

Procedural nomination of a declined CSD A10 (duplicate article). I'm not myself quite seeing the distinction between the two topics (entomophagy is the other one), but its creator is strongly defending it, so it probably needs a wider discussion here. SpinningSpark 22:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reading the contested deletion and both articles, I tend to agree with the page creator. They really are two separate topics, albeit related, in the same way that Vegetarian cuisine is distinct from Vegetarianism. The article is well-sourced and the subject meets WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! One is about edible insects as food items. The other about the process of eating these edible insects in a cultural framework (ethical issues, taboo in Western cultures etc.). To write about both topics in one article would be like writing about the nutritional value of soy beans in the article veganism. --AlienFood (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, there is in fact a large and detailed Vegan diet § Nutrients subsection in veganism, including a full paragraph and then some on the nutritional aspects of soy protein, as well as a Veganism#Soy subsection. Wikipedia articles often have this kind of wide-ranging mix of perspectives from different fields on important concepts. FourViolas (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FORK, redirecting to Entomophagy, which means the eating of insects, i.e. the use of insects as human food. There is no wedge to be driven between these terms, used indifferently to describe the practice; it is not true that either of the two more particularly means 'cuisine' or '-ism', as both terms cover both those things. Since 1954 they have converged in popularity, reaching roughly equal frequency. --Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As it is, simply redirect it to entomophagy and create a new section. Insects as food and eating insects aren’t grammatically the same thing.Trillfendi (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and redirect Edible insects to this page). This is not a duplicate article:
- Entomophagy describes the process of eating insects by humans (and animals), this is connected to certain cultural aspects, such as a certain country-specific cuisine, acceptance, taboo etc.
- Edible insects (insects as food) in difference to that are certain insect species that can be used for human consumption, or processed into insect-based food products (insect burgers, insect bread, insect pasta). Example: A mealworm is an edible insect, a house cricket is an edible insect. They are food such as soy, minced meat, etc., have certain nutritional profiles, ways of production, legal framework (e.g.: cricket, mealworm and locust are authorized as food in Switzerland).

The first is a culture-related article, the second is an article based on nutritional science, food production and food law. For the first article you would search for scientific literature in the area of cultural studies, psychology, anthropology. For the latter you would search for scientific literature in the area of nutritional and food science, food technology, agricultural technology, etc.

To develop the whole topic under an article focused on the culture and process of eating insects is just misleading. We need a second article Insects as food (with Edible insects redirecting to it), just describing the food aspects (nutritional profile, farming/production, authorization). This article should stay, both have to be developed seperated from another. AlienFood (talk) 05:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another page in this general area is insectivore. Any merger or restructuring should not involve deletion, per WP:PRESERVE. Note that the OED does not recognise entomophagy and so it is a neologism which is less likely to be understood by readers than a title in plain English like insects as food. Andrew D. (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree! Please also note that entomophagy describes the consumption of insects by animals in general (humans included). We could also discuss to merge Entomophagy and Insectivore and add a section Entomophagy in human cultures. All food-related/insect-focused information could go over to the Insects as food article. AlienFood (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Insects as food' also describes the consumption of insects by non-humans. Unless food means something only eaten by humans, which leaves me wondering what the manufacturers of 'cat food' think they are doing. Its an interesting point that "entomophagy"

is not on the OED; is it in Websters or Collins??. This makes me think that the proper article title is Insects as human food or similar and that both "entomophagy" and "Insects as food should redirect to thisTheLongTone (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the OED online, but it is in Oxford Dictionaries elsewhere, and also in Collins and Merriam-Webster, see here. It gets a lot of hits on scholar, and on gbooks so despite the strange omission from the OED it does not seem to be a rarely used neoligism (the earliest use I saw was 1988). SpinningSpark 14:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The terms dog food and cat food are definitely exceptions, as both are considered very close to humans. In all other cases you would speak of feed. By the way, Insects as feed is a big, big topic currently discussed, definitely also interesting for an encyclopedia, there are masses of literature on that AlienFood (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do that quick search on the term edible insects too. This might be the right lemma for this article after all. AlienFood (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the N-gram for those terms. SpinningSpark 17:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearer N-gram with more smoothing. SpinningSpark 17:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Seeing this, I would suggest we keep the article, but put it under the lemma Edible insects and redirect Insects as food to it. Entomophagy can stay seperately with it's focus on societal and cultural aspects (cultural tradition, cuisine, taboo/prohibition). --AlienFood (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect we shouldn't even need an AFD for a new user (AlienFood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) who is clearly creating a CFORK without consensus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classical argumentum ad hominem. Please stay factual and add to the discussion. --AlienFood (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment The creator, has put up a whole lot of work as i see, i think we should try and keep it.... It also sounds interesting, i wonder who would wanna search this, but perharps the creator would like to make this a subpage, rather than a mainspace article? B. N .D | ✉ 08:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages cannot be created in mainspace by policy and technical limitation. SpinningSpark 11:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a well-written and well-referenced article and the contents is sufficiently different from Entomophagy as to warrant a stand alone article in my opinion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stick to it: I vote for keeping the article! It has a different approach than the compared article on Entomophagy. Entomophagy is a biological term describing the process of eating insects among animals, partly it is used to describe this practice among humans. The article insects as food – and I suggest to redirect the lemma edible insects to it, or make edible insects the main lemma – fully focuses on edible insects as food items, i.e. the species that are considered for mass rearing, the production, nutritional information, as well as the regulatory framework. This information is culturally unbound, e.g., crickets are produced in Europe, the US, as well as South-East Asia (Thailand) for human consumption. Cultural aspects (acceptance, taboo, history) are (and should be) dealt with in the article entomophagy. Aspects regarding food safety should be transferred completely to the article insects as food. As the topic of edible insects has high economic and media awareness currently, I see that the article insects as food will develop fast. Economic institutes assume that the global market value for edible insects will increase from 406 million US dollars (2018) to 1.2 billion US dollars until 2023 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/882321/edible-insects-market-size-global/). I am asking you: How would you want to depict and document this development under the entomophagy article. --AlienFood (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 13:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the hard work that's gone into this, and generally prefer to defer to content creators' preference on organization, but I think a merge is necessary. The distinction between the practical realities of insect farming and consumption on the one hand, and the cultural significance of this on the other, leaves a lot of messy grey areas: governmental regulation is obviously influenced by both, for example. There are several specific sections that appear to be direct forks: e.g.
- Entomophagy#Nutritional_benefits and Insects_as_food#Nutritional_profile;
- Entomophagy#Disadvantages and Insects_as_food#Challenges_and_safety_concerns; and
- Entomophagy#Minilivestock and Insects_as_food#Farming,_production,_and_processing (here, the former is a tendentious version of the latter).

Importantly, it's not clear for any of these whether the "right" place to put them is in a "what & how" article or a "whether & why" article. Rather, it seems like the best way to give readers complete information with full background is to make a large article with clearly labeled sections that separate cultural and practical issues when possible. FourViolas (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for highlighting these three areas with some minor overlaps/duplicate elements. From my point of view, parts of these three sections should be transferred from Entomophagy to the article Insects as food where they belong. Links could be set, if necessary. --AlienFood (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recycle Track Systems

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

An advertorially toned page on a private business; significant RS coverage not found. Has been previously deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recycle Track Systems. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as (repeated) unambiguous WP:PROMO, aggravated by apparent disregard for previous community consensus. Bakazaka (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag: yes poorly written and reads like an advert, however it looks very well sourced from a range of different independent sources which suggests it is more than routine. Previous discussion was not much of a discussion at all as only 1 person commented. With some improvement tags may and a slight rewrite in tone it could be an ok article. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: also a quick Google search reveals Forbes and CNBC wrote about them [10] [11] so I don't think it is just a standard case of self-promotion, passes WP:GNG for me Abcmaxx (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes piece is an interview with the CEO, with regurgitated PR as lead-in. The CNBC piece is from a college student "contributor" and is built around PR text and images. That's not good enough to pass WP:NCORP, even if the WP:PROMO policy violation is ignored. Bakazaka (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: about CNBC authorship: it doesn't matter if the author is a college student; the piece has to pass CNBC editorial review. It's not a blog posting. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend keep The deletion nomination is predicated on 'advertorial tone' and 'lack of reliable sources'. The first is an editing issue; the second is false. There also seems to be a presumption that something deleted via AfD should stay deleted. There are remedies for this: WP:SALT, Speedy deletion, blocking of authors ... though these are pretty heavy hammers and don't seem appropriate in this case. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the blizzard of references, I don't see anything that makes this meet WP:NCORP. WP:THREE applies. If I had run across this on my own, I might have deleted it under WP:G11. List of customers, lists of dubious awards, lists of things they've done to make an impact? That's not an encyclopedia article, that's a PR piece. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Era Online

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

Non-notable MMO. Article created by COI account back in 2006, before it was so heavily frowned upon.

References are poor. The four simply under "external links" are all related to the project so I've ignored them. The ones under "further reading", as follows:

PC Gamezone: short, mostly interview, clearly pre-release
RPG Vault Archive: merely a link to an interview, whose link is dead even on archive.org
Stratics.com: link dead even on oldest archive.org copy. Bottom of page notes it's a fansite, so probably not reliable
RPG Vault Archive: reprint of press release
Indews.com: too short to be in-depth, actual domain now totally dead, archive.org copy barely has any info about what it was so can't even say if it was reliable anyway
Gamer.no: personal reflection about RPGs in general, Era Online mentioned at the bottom as something the author played. rest of article not captured on archive.org that I can tell
Gamer.no: interview with creator (and author of the article), not independent
Novinky.cz: unclear from context what kind of site this was, or how reliable. Domain is now a news site; not sure if it's the same publication as it was then.
[12]: Content on photobucket is not a reliable source.

I wasn't able to find any other reliable information about the game. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFM Khalid Hossain

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

Professional qualification is not only evidence for notability. Failed WP:GNG. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 08:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PROF. --nafSadh ^{did say}
Delete as failing WP:NACADEMIC. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Quite snowy. Anarchyte (talk | work) 13:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mufti Izharul Islam

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

Professional qualification is not only evidence for notability. Failed WP:GNG ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 08:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He receives consistent coverage as the leader of a notable political party and co-founder of a notable political pressure group.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] WP:POLOUTCOMES says "Leaders of registered political parties at the national ... level are sometimes considered notable despite their party's lack of electoral success." This seems to be such a case, where there is sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like he meets WP:NPOL and per Worldbruce. --nafSadh ^{did say} 17:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- First of all, nom's deletion rationale makes no sense. Second, as noted by above editors the guy clearly meets GNG not only as the head of a notable political party but also as a fugitive from the law in 2014. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is mentioned many times at The Daily Star, the largest circulating English-language newspaper in Bangladesh. 1, 2, 3. --Gprscrippers (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, verifiable – and of interest to the general public. /Julle (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) scope_creep (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zerto

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Zero coverage, fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH. Quite an old article but never really been sourced, and slightly promotional. scope_creep (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Keep per scope_creep; ~~a highly WP:PROMOTIONAL article on a not-notable company.~~ Chetsford (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could use a refresh, but flagship product Reviewed two weeks ago in PCmag.com https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2500054,00.asp Vonfraginoff (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vonfraginoff. Since nomination I have included that pcmag reference and made the article more product than corporation focused and hopefully edged down promotional aspects a little. Wish I had more time to work the product detail up a little.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm convinced by the independent pcmag review above (+ a few others I see in a search) that the company's main/sole product - "Zerto Virtual Replication" - is notable. The company is probably notable as well (e.g. see these items in Calcalist - [23][24], which interestingly - notability wise - [25] excludes them in 2018 on the basis of "The following list does not include six of Israel’s most successful technology startups: online payments company Payoneer Inc., content distribution companies Taboola Inc. and Outbrain Inc., disaster recovery software company Zerto Inc., data storage company Infinidat Ltd., and mobile and web monetization company IronSource Ltd.. Having grabbed the top spots on Calcalist’s ranking in previous years, we believe these companies, some already generating annual sales in the high hundreds of millions, have already matured beyond the scope of the current list."), and it doesn't seem to make sense, in this case, to have a separate company and product page. Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the pcmag is enough to establish notability. Chetsford I would like to withdraw this, if your cool about it. scope_creep (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination scope_creep (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Web Intelligence Consortium

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

Notability; page likely created by org, or somebody connected to org; questionable if org still exists, logo from more than a decade ago LikeMeercats (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to my initial nom, look at the sources, primary not secondary LikeMeercats (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 08:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The organisation is involved in a "Web Intelligence Chile" conference next month [26] so does still exist. AllyD (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, their own website is littered with 404 links and is little updated, the article refs are 404 or primary. I think they do something but it isn't enough for inclusion here. Szzuk (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Scott Cummins

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

No coverage in reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NACTOR. Previously deleted by AfD with the closer requesting that CSD not be used against recreated articles, which also disqualifies it for PROD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and comment: He did appeared in some notable films and he has a recurring role in Bosch. While the majority of his roles in notable films were smaller, his role in Bosch is a major recurring one. While this article needs major expanding and reliable sources for sure, I don't think this article needs to be deleted. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets criteria #1 of WP:NACTOR with significant roles in both It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (see Deadline and this cast interview in The Hollywood Reporter for example) and Bosch. The previous AfD was in 2012, well before his recurring role in Bosch.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the keep votes but in a different way, keep the article but as a draft. If not kept in that way, delete. I agree with keep votes that he is not entirely non notable, but There are still two facts: 1) he "barely" passes or even depending on what your thoughts are on Sunny role he had, fails WP:NACTOR because he needs multiple significant roles in notable shows or movies(film roles are all minor, Sunny role where he appeared in a guest 7 episodes role only (which I do not consider that notable) apart from the bigger Bosch recurring role there is not much yet) and 2) references wise, I am unable to find a significant coverage from reliable sources that are not just passing mentions. I feel like he could still be in the WP:TOOSOON domain. He may be notable in the future but not now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject's own website and IMDb do not add up to reliable sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment John Pack Lambert, I added a couple of references that I had noted above into the article, that way if it's draftified there will be reliable sources to work with.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per John Pack Lambert. The role in Bosch is not a "significant" one. Fails GNG too, and there's very little out there that we could realistically use to build an article. — Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ponyo; clearly passes NACTOR (there seems to be a misunderstanding that "significant roles"=leading roles only); furthermore—reference the previous AfD, I note that the closer was also was almost swayed by some of the "keep" arguments. The subject's notability has increased, rather than decreased, since then. ——SerialNumber54129 12:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no misunderstanding. The roles he has held, leading or otherwise, are not significant. If they were, there would be some independent 3rd party coverage of the guy, which there clearly isn't. — Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am withdrawing my vote. I don't really agree that guest roles are significant nor that he clearly passes WP:NACTOR (a short guest role on Sunny is just not significant even if you do count Bosch one as such), but since its such a borderline case, I am stepping back. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Srinivasan

AfDs for this article:

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

Full of interviews, PR articles, routine coverage like stock news, price there are lots of spammy articles about aditya birla subsidiaries being created and getting deleted. It is probably a big undisclodes marketing campain by the organisation like User:Rural guy6681/sandbox, MyUniverse, A. Balasubramanian, Aditya Birla Capital. - Editor General of Wiki (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 17:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, notability is not inherited. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of sources dedicated to the subject Spiderone 13:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: promotional walled garden; does not meet WP:BIO. Likely UPE based on other pages from the same cluster, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aditya Birla Capital. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nerd3

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

Similar article at Draft: Daniel Hardcastle on the same subject recently rejected. Pages Dan Hardcastle and Daniel Hardcastle previously deleted due to lack of notability, the latter being indefinitely protected. There’s just not enough content to justify an article. Koldcuts (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rather large body of evidence for a content creator, who has in excess of 2.6 million YouTube subcribers on his primary channel alone, a published book and a number of other works that have been outlined in this source.

Surely there must be precedents set by the likes of Jacksepticeye that such figures are of public interest.

Any pointers on how this can be supported with additional content to demonstrate its relevance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPaperwings (talk • contribs) 20:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me if anything I’d be biased towards keeping the article as I’m a fan of Dan. However the largest problem for him continues to be third-party reporting. There’s just not enough of it (though maybe that’ll change when his book comes out, as it hasn’t been published yet). In a case like Jacksepticeye, as you can see by searching Google news for his name you get numerous reports from sources like Polygon, Independent, BBC about his recent split. Searching for Dan doesn’t have nearly as much coverage, with only passing mentions in good sources and only a few less-decent sources with full articles about him. The problem now is the same it was 3 years ago; despite his following he just doesn’t have enough external coverage. Koldcuts (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 16:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hardcastle and multiple recreations under other titles. @MrPaperwings: "Surely there must be precedents set by the likes of Jacksepticeye that such figures are of public interest." Look at the history of George Miller (entertainer), a more popular YouTuber which was deleted and salted until he charted on Billboard. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No keep vote presents a rationale that satisfies NFOOTY or GNG. Am happy to restore to userspace if someone specifially requests it. Fenix down (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Arce (footballer)

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and GNG BlameRuiner (talk) 07:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NFooty, Govvy (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify - fails GNG and NFOOTY pretty clearly. However, I would consider moving this to draftspace as he has previously trained with the Puerto Rico national team, and has a fair chance of making his debut for them at some point in the future – this page has enough info that it may be useful to not delete it entirely. 21.colinthompson (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Has played for Puerto Rico before, we just need to wait until he plays against another FIFA member. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has played with the U17 and Senior team, and he's gonna make his debut tonight with the U20. Also playing college. I've read wikipedia articles about college players with much less information and sources. He's also a regular player in the last 3 Senior National team call-ups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JavierAlejandro23 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has he played against any FIFA member nation at senior level, JavierAlejandro23? If so, post evidence because then he will pass WP:NFOOTY. If not, the page fails notability. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty clear WP:NFOOTY fail, but he did sit on the subs bench for a recent game (though no idea if this is a RS or not): [27] SportingFlyer talk 11:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sitting on the bench is not enough to pass Spiderone 13:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* Next week Puerto Rico plays against Belize and there's a pretty good chance he could get some minutes and make his debut.

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbiriya

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

Searches for this Order have turned up hits only on social media and extended Wikimedia pages. There is a presence in terms of photo uploads to Wikimedia Commons as well as Wikivisually, and I found a Facebook page. The organization appears to have its own official (amateurish) website. Aside from that, I haven't found anything to establish even the most basic notability required for WP:GNG. Also, part of the text is copied from the Chisti article, which is about an Order that actually is notable; a number of non-notable articles have also featured copy-paste from the Chisti article, signaling a pattern. This seems like yet another attempt by obscure South Asian religious groups to exploit Wikipedia as a means of generating fame for themselves. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NORG, this maybe a kind of groupuscule but not sufficiently notable to passe notability criteria. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Najamuddin Ahmed

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

The only source which has been cited in the article is one about the Chisti Order, not the subject of the article. That same citation has been copy pasted across Wikipedia in rather questionable articles, almost as if piggy-backing off of that Order's renown. I haven't been able to find anything on this specific individual, though there was a handful of sources referring to a modern individual by the same name in passing. This has been tagged for almost a decade; the chance for it to pass WP:GNG is over. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources cited as references do not mention the subject beit the reference with a footnote or the others. Not shown to be notable. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle De Laurell

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY and fails WP: GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SportingFlyer talk 04:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and also fails WP:NHOCKEY with a pro "career" of apparently 4 ECHL games. Being all-conference is not enough to meet WP:NCOLLATH. Papaursa (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet NHOCKEY and not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything meeting GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Strong consensus that NPOL is satisfied and sufficient consensus that there is sufficient sourcing to satisfy any coverage aspect of that. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Parent

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

This politician has 0 reliable sources (I checked) and notability cannot be established, as of yet. If she were a U.S. Senator, it’d be a different story, but as a relatively unknown state senator with no sources to verify anything, I propose deletion. Trillfendi (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has certainly been in the news in the last year or so, with articles about draft bills she has introduced on gun control, confederate monuments, sexual harassment training for legislators, controversial issues in her state. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of the Georgia State Senate since 2015. Passes WP:NPOL. While the current sourcing (as I type) is not nearly adequate, the CV of the subject is housed on the website of the State Senate. --Enos733 (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having now read WP:NPOL, which clearly states that politicians who have held statewide office are presumed to be notable, I don't understand why this article was proposed for deletion at all. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen Show me any reliable source on her, I’ll wait. That same WP:NPOL section says: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although 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".Trillfendi (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "major local political figures" criterion is for mayors and city councillors, not state legislators. State legislators hold office at the state level, not the local one, and are covered under NPOL #1, not NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 870 current results in Google News under her name (even if just quick comments on constituent issues). If WP:BEFORE was done by nom, it was in a sloppy manner and without good search modifiers. Subject easily passes NPOL. Nate • (chatter) 13:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m reminding you... no reliable sources to verify any statement made in this article. Wikipedia is not for CVs, it’s not supposed to read like a resume, there have to be sources to back it up.Trillfendi (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As the nominator, it is incumbent on you to do a proper BEFORE. You clearly haven't in the barest sense; her name is regularly in Atlanta news media sources. This should be easy to source, and your claim there are 'zero' sources is undone by her state page and the minimum GN sources. Nate • (chatter) 16:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mrschimpf Obviously I did do a “before” and that’s how I came to my initial conclusion. The very most I could find was a brief, one sentence mention in the New York Times on the 3rd page of Google. But I guess that’s significant coverage these days. Those new sources you speak of were added by another user after I had proposed deletion of this article. Show me all these other Georgian reliable sources that substantiate the criteria of significant coverage and I would happily add them, but I won’t hold my breath.Trillfendi (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would you like a hint? Try the "news" tab instead of the "all" tab. You'll suddenly see what everybody else is seeing. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even in that case I still only see fleeting mentions.... Whenever she decides to run for a higher office or maybe becomes embroiled in a controversy, on then could the article even have room for improvement. But as I said, if you find these wonderful sources be my guest.Trillfendi (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        State legislator is in and of itself a high enough office to justify a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 'Local' is clearly distinguished from state level. She is not a local official, she has been elected to statewide office, and is therefore presumed notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Show me the ~~money~~ sources. (Holding the office is one part, but notability itself simply has to be established through significant coverage which she clearly lacks. These are halves.)Trillfendi (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject verifiably meets the "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" criterion of WP:POLITICIAN. That criterion, as is explained in the notes of the guideline, is intended to ensure complete encyclopedic coverage of such subjects even if they do not satisfy other coverage guidelines, so the premise of the nomination is dubious. Bakazaka (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep erroneous nomination. A quick Google search turns up many reliable sources. Elected to Georgia Senate November 2014. Netherzone (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Parent meets WP:NPOL and therefore her notability is presumed. Google News brings up many independent RS such as [28] and there is a fair bit of coverage in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution too (e.g. 22 May 2014, pages B1 and B8); there is more than enough material to show that Parent meets WP:BASIC. Furthermore, she is not a local official as she has held statewide office. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets NPOL as a member of the Georgia state senate. Deletion is not cleanup. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the article does need some improvement — but state legislators pass WP:NPOL #1 just the same as federal ones do, and there most certainly is media coverage out there about her to improve the article with. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NPOL. Article should be improved. SportingFlyer talk 00:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Morgan

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

This article is surely non-notable. Morgan's acting career apparently totals 4 appearances in Korean productions (at least 1 of which is only a single episode) and 1 episode of an Australian series. There are no sources and are highly unlikely to be any.Cabrils (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Cabrils (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedy even. Unreferenced and out of date BLP. Also style is PROMO, and this and this indicate his two movie roles were very minor. I cannot find anything at all to indicate any IRS to meet WP:NEXIST so big fail on GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No strong evidence if the subject is notable. Orientls (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There is consensus here that this article does not sufficiently meet WP:V. Vanamonde (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre

AfDs for this article:

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

This page has been tagged for refimprove since November 2011 but no additional refs have been provided. It relies largely on a single reference which does not appear to be WP:RS. If 1200 people really were massacred, you would expect more coverage than this. It may be an exaggeration or may be a WP:HOAX like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinh Xuan massacre, whichever it is it should not be retained on Wikipedia unless WP:RS are given. Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- perhaps Wikiprojects Vietnam and South Korea should be consulted? Language barrier would be a big issue for English-only editors. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I came here from WPKOREA but I don't speak Korean well enough to help. Hopefully some native speakers will be able to provide a review of sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I reached out to both projects, but there's been no feedback. In view of that, I suggest deleting the article, as an unconfirmed event, or a potential hoax. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - that it would be a hoax is pure speculation. clearly there are some sources. keep is the best option so that users can work on it. BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the issue, no-one has worked on it and no WP:RS have been provided since 2011, so it may well be a hoax. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unconfirmed event WP:V applies, nor lists any WP:RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pyorrhoea

AfDs for this article:

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

nn band surviver AfD in 2008 simply because our attitude was lax. Since then nothing was added to assert notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND and there is not enough in depth coverage of them that I found JC7V-talk 19:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to give information about any band activity. Alex-h (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siyaram Singh

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

Simply fails WP:GNG. Might be an undisclosed COI issue with the editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete completely fails GNG yes. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me-2-U

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

Non notable music group, Fails NMUSIC & GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 20:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: they charted two songs on the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs chart [29], and on the R&B/Hip Hop Airplay and the Adult R&B charts as well, although I'm not sure if the latter two charts are subcomponents of the first one. It's not much, but they do have a charting history at least. Richard3120 (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charted songs are great but GNG or atleast BASIC still needs to be met, At present there's not one source in the article so theoretically they should actually be deleted under BLPPROD. –Davey2010^Talk 00:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree – I've added the source for the chart history, but it's still difficult to justify this article if there isn't a single source for any of the prose in it. Richard3120 (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the charting singles enough for significance?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm really on the fence with this one. The chart hits and minor placings on relatively minor charts, they had no hits on the Billboard Hot 100. They released one album on major label RCA, so there is likely some coverage around, but being from 1993, coverage of the album is likely to be in print sources. There is a very brief bio at Allmusic ([30]), and a more substantial article from The Crisis ([31]) - finding anything else may require a trawl through offline sources. --Michig (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It coudn’t be more clear that they are not notable enough for an article. Billboard is not notability unless they chart at a substantial number (such as top 10) or break a record. Many non-notable artists / groups have charted on Billboard.Trillfendi (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 22:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Willoughby Mason Willoughby

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

I'm not convinced that being the Medical Officer of Health for London satisfies WP:BIO. I'm also not seeing anything other than the cited obituary, so he fails WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 'Medical Officer of Health' is a rather greater role than the name might suggest. Also he was appointed to this at a particularly fraught time during the Great War, and he served through the Spanish Flu period. The idea that "there are no other sources" is of course nonsense: we base such judgements on the existence of such sources, not whether they're currently cited in the article.

His brother probably warrants their own article too, as a president of the BMA. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite a lot of references for him come up on a search for "Dr W M Willoughby". As well as journal articles and government reports, there are articles about his work on plague on ships, food contamination, pigeon, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are multiple detailed obituaries as well as various articles on his work. More than sufficient coverage, particularly for a historical figure. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C-treeACE

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

I find virtually no applicable coverage in independent sources meeting WP:N. Largoplazo (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Based upon WP:N, this page should not be deleted. The list of sources is sound, especially because they are strong in the software and technology sectors. Also, this company has been around for more than 35 years. TexasTerror (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

c-treeACE (aka c-tree Plus until the late 2000s) has been around for more than 30 years. It is one of the oldest database technologies on the market, and it is used by Verizon, Visa, UPS and other well-known companies. This is not a page that should be deleted. BubbaBexley (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, I have removed the sockpuppeters (now both blocked) votes/comments per sock strike. Now, to the AfD. Very borderline case which relies too much on primary sources. Most of the things in the article and in my search were primary & press release sources or failed WP:SIGCOV. The only one that may contribute to the notability is: this one http://www.drdobbs.com/database/faircom-c-treeace-aims-to-bridge-both-sq/240134948. There is another one https://sdtimes.com/faircoms-newest-c-treeace-bridges-sql-nosql-worlds/ but it seems it is a promo-ish reference at best which again focuses on the one who made it. Not enough to pass GNG itself. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I searched AfD and found secondary sources to add to article and seem to be WP:N; one was "Handbook of Research on Cloud and Fog Computing Infrastructures for Data Science"^[1] and "Privacy and Security Policies in Big Data" ^[2] AfD could use better sources like these so I'll add these. Insight890 (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Insight890 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment The sources may qualify as reliable sources, but these are just mentions in lists, not significant coverage as is called for to demonstrate notability. Largoplazo (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources Insight890 posted are both passing mentions and not WP:SIGCOV so they do not count towards notability. Also seeing how this user has only edits per this article alone, I would not be surprised if he/she is another sock lurking. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking over the sources in the article, they're all either really about FairCom, routine business/PR annoucements, or just directory-style listings in various NoSQL articles. My own searching didn't find anything better. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV (which requrires coverage to be in-depth, i.e no passing mentions), WP:NCORP.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm assuming User:Mongodbfan is a sock. Ignoring that, we're left with unanimous (if poorly attended) consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FairCom Corporation

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

I find virtually no applicable coverage in independent sources meeting WP:N. Largoplazo (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Business insider and Engineering.com are legitimate sources base upon WP:N. It is obvious that who ever created the page is a novice, but from what I can tell, the content is accurate and is not promotional. It is just stating facts. Also, FairCom is company that has been around for more than 35 years, which demonstrates it is a significant entity. TexasTerror (talk)

Note this editor has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TexasTerror.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FairCom Corporation is one of the oldest database technology companies in existence. It may be small, but it used by major companies such as Verizon, Visa, UPS and Rockwell Automation. The page should not be deleted.BubbaBexley (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note this editor has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TexasTerror.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - conferring with the nominator, and adding that the subject company seems to fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Mentions-in-passing, as the majority of the sources are, do not confer notability per NCORP, and the one quality source (the Engineering.com article) contains some primary content and is written in a speculative tone. In short, the sources cited do not demonstrate adequate notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - People in the IT industry and enterprise-level-company management use the Gartner Magic Quadrant as the go-to-source when evaluating companies and IT products. If FairCom is in the Gartner Magic Quadrant, which it is/was, it is a relevant company. If the company is guilty of anything, it is poor marketing for nearly 40 years. Also, recent news about a new partnership with PTC and its contract with Verizon are other examples that the company is relevant in the database market. DatabaseMaster (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck sock vote, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TexasTerror.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - FairCom’s c-tree was one of the first databases to hit the market in the 80s. I find that the sources meet the necessary Wikipedia criteria. Mongodbfan (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to In the Middle of the City. No prejudice against recreating this as a stand-alone article if better sourcing can be found which firmly establishes that this meets WP:GNG and/or WP:TVSERIES. It sounds like any such sources are likely to be in Georgian. That's fine (there's no requirement for sources to be in English), but it would be useful to most of our readership if any citations included a translated quote in the citation. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10 Years Later (TV series)

AfDs for this article:

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

In my WP:BEFORE search, I was unable to find any secondary sources coverage for the show, not even in the Georgian title (different subjects come up) so it fails WP:GNG. Was tagged for verification issues since 2016. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I am bad at googling in scripts I can't read, but I did notice that we did not have an interwiki link to the Georgian article. I have since added that. In what I found when looking, I did see a preponderance of links for TV show clips, so it does make me think that, if someone can read Georgian, such information may be available. As such, I lean toward leaving this as a stub and keeping. matt91486 (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note, the network it is on is a national private network as far as I can tell, which means it should pass WP:TVSERIES. matt91486 (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Matt91486: The problem here is WP:TVSERIES also says a sentence later...In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. Either there are sources to back the notability or there are not. Check WP:NRVE. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And I think it's pretty clear that without being able to search for Georgian sources effectively, it's difficult for us to say there is an 'absence' of reliable sources. Hopefully a reader who has Georgian language ability can help. The Georgian article is moderately substantial, which leads me to believe that such sources do exist. Or see literally the next policy below NRVE (WP:NEXIST). We can go round and round in policy refs though, it's pretty clear that this will fall between lots of conflicting ones. We don't even have a good list of Georgian newspapers that we could hypothetically search. List of newspapers in Georgia (country) is a pretty incomplete seeming list, and when I try to google some of the red links -- even those that are allegedly the papers of record according to a BBC list, I'm not able to clearly find websites for them. I worry about systemic bias concerns for including content that is "easier" to make. Perhaps we could post it at the Georgian (country) Wikiproject for assistance? I did not do it myself, since I don't want to violate WP:CANVASS. matt91486 (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Matt91486: WP:NEXIST says that Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, and there still are not any reliable coverage in secondary sources to be found. If not, this should be deleted, nothing more, nothing less. And...is that source you posted a foreign site for watching TV shows illegally online? Even if it was a legal one, either way that is not a source that counts towards notability. Hopefully someone else will help here, or this has no reason to stay in mainspace of Wikipedia. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's an illegal streaming website, but I can't rule it out. That wasn't my intention anyway. I think it's a media portal for the Adjara region. As for your reading of NP:EXIST, you skipped the remainder of the sentence, where it says "not their immediate presence or citation in an article". It's clear at this point we don't have their immediate presence, given that neither of us can read Georgian. At this point we just gave different views on the likelihood of those sources existing. I tend toward the TVSERIES view personally. I will post in the relevant wikiproject group in as non-canvass a way as possible in the hopes that someone may be able to offer relevant, regional expertise. matt91486 (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

net.adjara.com or adjara.net.com is a largely illegal streaming website. It is not a media portal for Adjara. Its name intentionally mimics the locally famous bookmaker Adjara Bet. Thus, it fails WP:RS.--Kober^Talk 20:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood! Thanks for the clarification. matt91486 (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a particularly great source, but it at least seems to be independent, reliable, and verifiable. [32]. But anything more substantial would require looking for someone who can read Georgian, I think. matt91486 (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with In the Middle of the City. Marginal notability on a national scale.--Kober^Talk 20:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to draft. Black Kite (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Climate U.S. PAC

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

Article is entirely sourced to the organization's own site. No indication of notability among thousands of minor PACs. — JFG ^talk 01:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

del' - no indication of notability whatsoever. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - added non-subject reference. There are certainly more out there too. X1\ (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no real secondary sources, and current sources are rank.

Ref 1 Them on vox medium.
Ref 2 dead.
Ref 3 to their own indiegogo fund raising site
Ref 4 to their site
Ref 5 to their site, dead
Ref 6 to their own site
Ref 7 /sites forbes blog subdomain. Non RS.

Every references is to their own sites channels. scope_creep (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now – I think this nomination may be a bit premature, as they have continued making news after this discussion started. However, the article does need to be almost completely rewritten. See [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]. No prejudice against renominating in a few months if they prove to have no lasting significance, but right now it may be too soon to tell. Brad v 17:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft to allow for the possibility of improvement. bd2412 T 04:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nobody opposes deletion. Sandstein 16:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grace (2018 film)

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

No coverage in reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NFILM. Closest to coverage in a reliable source that I can find is [39], which is more about the director than about the film (and is arguably not independent, as it is a Harvard publication about a Harvard alumnus). Originally nominated for PROD, dePROD by Necrothesp, arguing that it passes WP:NFILM due to having a notable cast. However, the guidelines at WP:NFILM states that an article may be considered notable if The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. (emphasis mine). I don't believe that the latter condition is fulfilled, especially in the total absence of coverage in reliable sources (or even reviews?). It's possible that it may later receive more coverage, as it made its debut at a film festival, but that would just mean that this is WP:TOOSOON. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The film appears to have earned the director an award [40] at the London Independent Film Festival, and has coverage elsewhere - [41][42][43]. Hzh (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trillfendi (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hzh's arguments have not been discussed, and a single delete vote without any text is not going to cut it right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that there is sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Lambert

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

Unclear notability. The article states that he was a pianist and piano teacher who was killed by a taxicab. Was he independently famous before his death? It appears that he was quite wealthy, but that does not assume notability. Natg 19 (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was created by a now-blocked user: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Natg 19: - I don't actually see that User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is currently blocked. Is that something forthcoming? --Kbabej (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found it here: [44] Natg 19 (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article is in pretty sorry shape, it does look like he meets WP:GNG. There is a chapter on him here in a 1911 book of interviews with master pianists, and another one here in a similar work. He has some recordings listed here at the Discography of American Historical Recordings. I can't see this one at the NYT, but someone with a subscription might be able to check it out, and the title sounds promising: "Hail Alexander Lambert; Musicians honor him as he rounds out 50 years of teaching piano." So, evidently some people thought he was notable back in his day, and notability is not temporary. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources found by PohranicniStraze (talk) confirm notability. I suggest update/improve article rather than delete. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It seems he taught Jerome Kern and Alfred Newman (sourced), and Margot Rojas Mendoza studied under him (unsourced), as did, according to Grove, Nadia Reisenberg. He was on the faculty of the New York College of Music from 1887 to 1905 (sourced). He has an entry in Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Lives

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

Non-notable organization with no sources or references. Kbabej (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

del No any notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Remagoxer (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing does not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 6). Tone 22:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April Carrión

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

Is not independently notable outside of Ru Paul's Drag Race and does not meet general, entertainer, or biographies notability guidelines. Attempts to restore redirect to Drag Race have been undone and so I am seeking community consensus that Carrion is not yet notable and the redirect should be restored. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Barkeep49. Searches did not turn up anything to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have not assessed notability or secondary coverage, but if the subject is deemed not notable, the page should be redirected to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 6), not deleted. The redirect serves a purpose. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: I agree and hope I made that clear in my nomination. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have told you multiple times that the sources I gave for this person ARE reliable and you have completely ignored their other appearances in the documentary, music video, etc. so the claim that their only notable for Drag Race is straight up incorrect. Plus their social media following, and lower placing and lower successful queens from the show have pages, there is no reason this is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratherbe2000 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor appearances with no significant coverage - fails WP:GNG. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 20 sources in the references section, so no, there is significant coverage to the article. I don't know what you're on about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratherbe2000 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael O. Johnson

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

This article was accepted for mainspace and there has been no attempt to expand the article as it has only three sentences. There has been no attempt to establish notability. Doing a search for sources and all that was found was what is already in the article. All they said is he was Herbalife CEO and only one said that he helped the company through their troubles. Other than that, there is nothing notable about him.

Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does CEO of an $8b dollar company for 15+ years not warrant an article on Wikipedia? The guy was Walt Disney International’s President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:b07a:99fb:9d36:724:55d1:9941 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, massive amount of coverage of Johnson available, here are some examples: Fortune - "Why Herbalife CEO's Departure Is a Body Blow to the Company", The New York Times - "Chief Who Guided Herbalife Through Troubles Will Step Down", from The Guardian - "Michael Johnson of Herbalife: America's highest paid CEO in 2011 ". Coolabahapple (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oh, and heres a profile from Bloomberg. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: The first couple of sources you linked to are already in the article. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yep, and they are good for notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Former CEO of notable multinational corporation. More detailed coverage in reliable sources like Boston Globe, LA Times, NYT. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:TOOLITTLE is not a valid reason to delete an article, and there's plenty of sources available to use to expand it. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 08:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nathan2055: There has been no attempts to expand the article. If nothing else, it should be back in draft until it is suitable for mainspace. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=UxxWDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA314&dq=%22C-treeACE%22%20-wikipedia&pg=PA314#v=onepage&q=%22C-treeACE%22%20-wikipedia&f=false

[2] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=QT5IDgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA68&dq=%22C-treeACE%22%20-wikipedia&pg=PA68#v=onepage&q=%22C-treeACE%22%20-wikipedia&f=false

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xian (abbreviation)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Money (2019 film)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7ujuh (film)}}<!--Relisted-->