Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 August	11 August >

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Craver

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

Non-notable musician lacking significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 23:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as self-promotion. --damiens.rf 16:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Child College of Davao, Inc.

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

On behalf of 49.148.236.71: "this college is not notable as I live in this area." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a nominator, I would choose to Delete this, this article has been promoting itself for a year until the editor removed it last month due to the heavy promotion, lack of references and not notable. 49.148.236.71 (talk)

Delete. No claim of notability and I cannot find references to add. Tacyarg (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a high school, it's probably notable. This article's last paragraph at least confirms that the school exists, and has a basketball team. So does this. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yeah the school exist but the first article you mentioned was a player itself not a school plus the second article i agree it is about school but the sources came from competition and nothing more sources to be found on this school as a notability it doesnt pass WP:GNG. 49.148.166.42 (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it looks like it covers both college and primary/secondary school. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per Tacyarg. Superabnoxious (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found exactly 32 sources online, all of them unreliable; I can't even verify it's a high school. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's a degree issuing college as per this translation, thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Available sourcing is garbage, and I'm not convinced that the snippet from Atlantic306's link actually indicates what he thinks it does, that bit at the bottom could easily be a story about one of the faculty's degrees. I also wouldn't click on that link, as it is 'trying to load unsafe scripts' according to Chrome; thank me later. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORG guidelines for notability -- unable to find even one significant, verifiable source for it -- everything I can find is unreliable or makes no claim of the school's notability. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and rename to Holy Child College of Davao add alias for Holy Child School of Davao, the name of its primary/secondary school prior to becoming a college. It is mentioned as one of the 40 colleges in Davao City "In higher education, there are already nearly 40 colleges in the city like Assumption College, Davao Doctors College, Holy Child College, Holy Cross College of Davao, Calinan and Sasa, San Pedro College and Philippine Women's College of Davao to name a few." [1]. It's also mentioned as one of the colleges participating in Davao City's University Fair. [2] and also on a list of schools that increased tuition [3] Right now it looks like mostly WP:ROUTINE coverage (lots of sports stuff and some academic contests) but considering it covers three campuses and primary and secondary schools (both junior and senior high), this may be like the Brokenshire College one as a "district". Here's an article about it adding some iPads for their Early Childhood Education programs. [4] Bio says it started as a day care / learning center in 1981, then added primary school recognized in 1986, and then high school established in 1989. It established as a college in 2001. [5] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The alternative, should it not meet WP:WITHIN, would be to retarget to List of universities and colleges in Davao City AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  I could definitely get behind merging and redirecting. I think the coverage you listed is all pretty routine, and doesn't quite rise to the level of notability. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another article about the college starting a Criminology department [6] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ellen W. Smoot

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources has been found, as per WP:BEFORE searches. The sources in the article are all primary, and do not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The general presidents of the auxiliaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are all clearly default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Subjects that the LDS church find to be noteworthy are not necessarily notable as per Wikipedia's standards. Mormon subjects and leaders do not get a free pass for an article based upon the concept of presumed notability, because no guideline or policy exists to provide this accommodation. As such, multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject are needed to qualify notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Furthermore, a previous discussion on the Notability (people) talk page in 2016, located here, regarding the notion of LDS church and other religious organization leaders being granted presumed notability on Wikipedia was widely opposed, with a consensus to not add a stipulation regarding said presumption of notability to the guideline page. Sorry, but the !vote above is rooted entirely in personal opinion, not Wikipedia guidelines or policies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Relief Society. Search does not find significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources (here emphasizing WP:IIS), so fails WP:BASIC. There does not seem to be another path to notability under other Wikipedia policies. The subject's claim to notability relates to role in the Relief Society. Clearly the Relief Society is a notable organization, but individuals do not inherit notability from organizations (WP:INHERITORG). So redirecting to the demonstrably notable organization makes sense. Bakazaka (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of General Presidencies of the Relief Society. I also can't find sources to cover WP:GNG. I'm a little surprised by that, given her role, but the notability guidelines are what they are. The correct redirect target is List of General Presidencies of the Relief Society rather than Relief Society, in my opinion, but that list has no references at all so far, so references from Mary Ellen W. Smoot should be copied there first (no new information, so not a merge-proper). › Mortee _talk 20:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notified the Wikipedia project on the Latter Day Saint movement of this deletion nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY I sourced it. I suspect that editors above are having trouble finding sources because she was active in the 1990s, and a few newspapers from back then show up in searches. I'm sourcing this now, using Proquest news archive, and finding INDEPTH coverage of her life and career, especially in the Salt Lake Tribune but also in some papers in other regions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding these sources to the article. The Chicago Tribune source is a brief quote, not in-depth coverage (see for yourself at the non-paywalled link [7]). The Spokesman Review source is mostly interview material (WP:PRIMARY) plus description of the Relief Society. The SLTrib multiple sources count as one source for notability purposes (WP:SIGCOV). Taken as a whole they still don't add up to significant coverage of the subject in multiple independent sources, based on Wikipedia policy. They do reinforce that a redirect to one of the Relief Society articles makes sense. There are many passing mentions and single quotes, but in the context of articles mostly about the Relief Society. Bakazaka (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more coverage from non-Utah sources. What has not been done at this point is to expand the article with the INDEPTH coverage of the her life and career extending over many years in the Salt Lake Tribune.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, because she headed an organization with over 4 million members for a decade and a half, there are hits in books and scholar, but only editors with access to very good new archives will find the trove of INDEPTH sourcing published over the years by the Salt Lake Tribune. Searching sltrib.com brings up very little, but proquest searches on versions of her name, or on Smoot + "relief Society" brings up a great many. Here is a small sample of the INDEPTH coverage that ran in the Tribune:

LDS Relief Society Leader: World Awaits Our Example; Relief Society Leader: Women Can Alter World, 28 Sep 1997: B.1.
3 Diverse Members of Mormon Church's Relief Society Presidency Share Same Goal: Strengthening Their Sisters; Relief Society Leaders Aim To Build Sisters, 27 Sep 1997: C.1.
Be Steadfast Amid Turmoil, LDS Women Are Admonished, 30 Sep 2001
LDS Prominent at Pro-Family Talks, 16 Nov 1999: A7.
Women See A Changing Of Guard; Relief Society Gets Leadership Makeover, 06 Apr 1997: A.7.
Stand Firm, Mormon Women Told; Relief Society members urged to renew convictions amid decaying morality, 27 Sep 1998
New Mission for 'Spirit Daughters of God', 26 Sep 1999: B1.
and more similar, in addition, of course, to scores of quoted remarks at conferences and in articles on topics llke How Do LDS Women in U.S. Live Their Lives? 05 Oct 2002, or Religions Set Family Agenda, 22 Nov 1999: A1., plus, of course, dozens of name checks of the type: Party Guest List Included Religious and Utah Notables, 24 June 2000. Notice, however, that 4.4 million women belonged to the organization she ran, and when, for example she introduced a new mission statement for the Relief Society, 5,000 women came to here her read it in public at the Temple Square. We sometimes need to remind ourselves that religious organizations of which we have never heard can have mass memberships and draw WP:SIGCOV even in the mainstream press (albeit in flyover country.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. What we're seeing here is that religious organizations can draw WP:SIGCOV. The sources support notability for the Relief Society. But that notability is not inherited by individual members (WP:INHERITORG). Bakazaka (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks again to E.M.Gregory for adding references to the article. But again, sources are mostly passing mentions and single quotes, which can be verified by those with ProQuest access. Here are some examples:

Cobourg Daily Star article is 500 words or so about the Relief Society and its anniversary. In the entire article, here is Smoot's coverage: "Today the 13th president, Mary Ellen Smoot, places emphasis on absorbing insight and inspiration from other women headed in the same direction. She encourages women to "stop seeking out the storms and enjoy more fully the sunlight."
Deseret News article is almost 900 words about a community's 100 year anniversary and its history. In the entire article, here is Smoot's coverage: "The printing of the wonderfully illustrated book culminated months of intense work by a committee headed by Sister Mary Ellen Smoot, former LDS Relief Society general president, and Lloyd B. Carr."
SLTrib 2015 article is over 1000 words about the World Congress of Families. In the entire article, here is Smoot's coverage: "Wilkins, Hafen and then-Relief Society General President Mary Ellen Smoot and then-Young Women President General Margaret Nadauld all gave major speeches at the meeting."
Telegram & Gazette article is 900 words about the Relief Society's quilt project. In the entire article, here is Smoot's coverage: "The General Relief Society's president, Mary Ellen Smoot of Salt Lake City, said about 13,000 quilts have been collected by the Humanitarian Center of the church in Utah. Smoot said that men and children are also contributing their efforts for the project."

It goes on like that. It's not significant coverage. This is an extremely similar pattern to corporate officers or spokespeople who are quoted or mentioned on behalf of their company. They're not notable on their own, and do not inherit notability from the organization (WP:INHERITORG). So, again, the sources support a redirect to the entity that is actually notable, in this case to one of the Relief Society articles. Bakazaka (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're cherry picking by ignoring the articles from the late 90s in the Tribune, and by eliding, for example, the other article that I added about the quilt project, or the context, which is that the quilt project articles were used to support a brief text in a paragraph about her initiatives as leader of a large organization. I hope other editors take a look at the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, all of the sources in the SLTrib count as one for purposes of determining significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV), if we're following Wikipedia policy. While the sources listed are behind paywalls for many editors, hopefully the transparency about actual content above, along with the non-paywall link provided to the Chicago Tribune reference, will help. And again, there's no question that the articles are mostly about the Relief Society, which is why a redirect makes the most sense. Bakazaka (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that several articles are primarily about Smoot, but what is beyond doubt is that the sourcing is more than sufficient to meet WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relief Society definitely passes WP:BASIC, agreed. But, as pointed out above, the articles that are primarily about Smoot don't count as multiple, independent, secondary sources for establishing notability, and articles that have been added as independent secondary sources are not about Smoot, also shown above. Bakazaka (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bakazaka's idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:SIGCOV notwithstanding, coverage of a subject does not have to be the primary topic of an article for the coverage to be deemed significant and supportive of notability. Notability can be established cumulatively, and often is established by use WP:RS coverage embedded in articles and chapters that primarily address a different topic. In the matter of Mary Ellen Wood Smoot, we have INDEPTH news coverage in WP:RS articles that are devoted to her leadership role in the LDS Church; (we also have a bio chapter in a book, albeit it is a book of single chapter biographies of LDS figures published by an LDS publisher - and therefore not counted towards notability;) and we have many articles in WP:RS media to which aspects of her life and/or work can be reliably sourced. In addition to publications affiliated with the Church, aspects of her life and career now in the article includes material published by the Salt Lake Tribune, the Standard-Examiner, The Spokesman-Review, Cobourg Daily Star, and the Telegram & Gazette in addition to Deseret News which is inter-linked with the Church, although it is editorially independent, and the Church publication, Ensign (LDS magazine), which does not count towards establishing notability. But do note that notable positions held also support notability, and she headed a large organization from 1997 through 2002. There is more than enough sourcing now in the article to meet WP:BASIC, although, of course, WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and more can be added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the actual content of the sources cited to support notability in the numerous revisions, perhaps a more appropriate essay would be WP:REFBOMB? Bakazaka (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sheer number of these articles is enough to show notability. The Salt Lake Tribune is not one source if it writes multiple articles on the subject. That said, I also question the disqualifying of the bio chapter. A book is a book, and should not be swept aside based on who its publisher is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW Keep. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bargawan railway station

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

Does not seem to be a notable railway station. No reference in the article. While it exists, it might not be so notable. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All railway stations are notable. See Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations)#Stations. I am worried, though, that there might be more than one station with this name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I had patrolled the article) Per WP:STATION and Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations)#Stations. After some google search I find that the Station has all the amenities and is a decently large station, that serves a large settlement. Had it been a small station, I would not have recommended a keep. --DBig Xray 00:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations)#Stations. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 10:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at four platforms and lots of scheduled trains, it's pretty big. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:STATION. As Bearian and DBigXray point out, this is fairly large. James500 (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment according to [8], there are over 10 villages in India of this name (including two in Jabalpur); it would be nice to have a page that specified exactly which village this is located in. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By longstanding consensus, all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Railway stations are notable. This AfD is a total waste of time. Smartyllama (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Warner Bros. As there seems a rough consensus both that there is not independent notability satisfied and also that the content is generally not reliable enough for a formal merge. The content remains available for specific adaptations by editors desiring to do so. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Bros. Recreational Enterprises

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

I initially boldy redirected this as being a subsidiary of WB is probably worth mentioning, it is not, on it's own, subject to the necessary coverage to sustain an article so I am proposing to delete and then redirect to the main article, Warner Bros. as most of what can be said could be added in 2-3 sentences, whereas this article is largely based on non-rs and synth. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warner Bros. I'm not seeing any valid sources that indicate this entity currently exists. Most of the citations appear to be out-of-date or only casually mention the term "Warner Bros. Recreational Enterprises," without any supporting verbiage. Many of the citations rehash the exact same content and therefore appear to have been copied from the same source. Warner Bros. Recreational Enterprises may have existed at one time, but I am not convinced that it still exists today. Given the current sources, there is not enough information to support a separate article.—JlACEer (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Warner Bros. I agree that this is not independently notable, but at present Warner Bros. doesn't mention Warner Bros. Recreational Enterprises, Bruce Berman or even Warner Bros. Movie World yet, so this should not be deleted or redirected without moving that information over first. › Mortee _talk 20:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with merging is that as it currently stands, the content is largely unsourced, synth or unreliable. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warner Bros. as a plausibe search term. Not independently notable, and the present content would not improve the target page, so I would oppose a "merge" in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remain I'm trying to pull as much information as possible. I've contacted Nicholas Winslow the former President and interviewed him about his time prior to leaving in 1999. I'm going to speak with Stephen Ross who left his position as Executive Vice President to Recreation Enterprises in 2017. I'm not certain in what way the company still exists but I feel there is enough to merit it's own page.Chrisisreed (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warner Bros. as this company is not independently notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Always April

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

Non-notable fictional musical. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMO this obviously does not pass WP:Notability criteria. I made a books and news search, and I found nothing satisfactory. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously not notable in Wikipedia terms, perhaps written for practice or similar. Personally I'd have gone through WP:PROD, but the result should be the same. › Mortee _talk 20:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not pass notability standards. I would not imagine that this would be a particularly useful search term so I do not see any value in a redirect. Aoba47 (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references in article. No references discovered in BEFORE. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dietlein

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Per WP:BEFORE searches, available sources in independent, reliable media consist of passing mentions and statements about the subject's management of Hale Centre Theatre. No significant coverage in independent sources about the subject has been found. Sources in the article are primary, and do not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current sourcing in the article does not support notability, but that's not the basis for assessing the subject's notability anyway. The subject does come up in some searches, in the form of minor mentions, quotes, interviews [9] or coverage of the Hale Centre Theater [10], none of which supports this subject's notability in particular. There is a 2007 article about a pay controversy at the theater [11], but it doesn't add up to significant coverage of the subject specifically. His "Pioneers of Progress" award is not a significant or well-known honor [12]. If anything, sources might support the notability of Hale Centre Theatre. A redirect to that page, if it existed, would make the most sense, since this subject cannot inherit that notability. Bakazaka (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chartchai Seangdao

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on an unsourced claim that Thai League 2 is fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know how notable the 2018 Asian Games are, but at the moment he fails basic WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vida Ventures

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

Delete References are all based on PRIMARY sources or company announcements and fails WP:ORGIND. No indications of notability in its own right. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. $295 million is rather insignificant for a venture fund; no longevity here either. Just a promotional directory listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Bartlett

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

attack bio Huldra (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nomination for this AfD appears to be based on WP:DEL3 (exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced). I would say that this is not satisfied. There are sources that back up the statements made. It is not particularly disparaging, and certainly not threatening or entirely negative in tone. WP:NEGATIVESPIN may apply, but that would not be sufficient for deletion. Channel 4 News and Snopes cover the sourcing aspect of the rebuttal (as a side effect, they also cover GNG etc). I would grant that NPOV may be an issue, but that is a clean-up case, not a deletion reason. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just to be clear: I wrote pretty much the whole article. In writing the article, I searched for RS coverage of Eva Bartlett, included pretty much every RS that I could find into the article, and included what the RS said about the subject. The text completely mirrors what the sources say, whether its positive, negative or neutral. The text in the article is simply the result of writing up what RS have reported about her. If I misconstrued the RS to portray her negatively, OP should point out where and how. If I did not include RS that reflect more positively on Bartlett, OP should point to those and/or add those to the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my request regarding the two criticisms below: If I misconstrued the RS to portray her negatively, point out where and how. If I did not include RS that reflect more positively on Bartlett, point to those and/or add those to the article. The user Burrobert is arguing that WP:OR should be added to the article to provide WP:FALSEBALANCE and is arguing that the text should not reflect what WP:RS say. That's not how Wikipedia works. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bartlett is notable for her work yet there is only one example of her work in the references (relating to her visit to North Korea). There are no direct references to her work on Syria which is the focus of most of the article. When her views on Syria are mentioned in the article the source used is not the article where she made the statement but third party references which are criticising her view. Every Wikipedia BLP of writers, journalists, bloggers etc that I looked at contained some examples of the persons work. This seems the fairest way of giving readers access to the subject’s work.

There are a number of examples of subjective wording in the article. In these sentences Bartlett’s views are described negatively by the Wikipedia editor. The examples I found are as follows:

1. “promoting the falsehood that ....”. The use of the noun “falsehood” makes an editorial comment about Bartlett’s claim without allowing readers to read what she originally said or how she responded to the criticism.

2. “Bartlett's claims were debunked by ....”. The use of the verb “debunked” makes an editorial comment about Bartlett’s claim without allowing readers to read what she originally said or how she responded to the criticism.

3. “Bartlett's claims were amplified by Russian-controlled outlets, such as RT and Sputnik News.”. What is the meaning of “amplified” here? A more neutral term might be “appeared in” if that is what it means. There is no link to where she made the claim or to where in RT or Sputnik News they appeared.

4. “Bartlett falsely claimed that the Al Quds Hospital bombing, where 55 died, never occurred”. The use of the adverb “falsely” makes an editorial comment about Bartlett’s claim without allowing readers to read what she originally said or how she responded to the criticism. It would be fairer to state what she had said with a link to the article where she said it. Then any critical views could be given. If Bartlett had responded to the criticism (which she has done) then her responses should also be given. However, there is no reference to the article in which she stated the claim and we only get her statements as they appear in critical articles.

The linked source to the following statement does not mention the claim made in the statement and no other source verifying this statement was provided: “Several of Bartlett's videos have been removed from YouTube as part of Google's policy to clamp down on content that is part of Russian disinformation”.

There are problems with the following statement: “Buzzfeed News noted that the 2014 elections were widely regarded as a "sham"”. Firstly, this statement is not about Bartlett but seems to be a way of implicitly criticising her without addressing what she has said. Secondly, if an analysis of the 2014 Syrian election is to be included, then balancing opinions exist and should have been mentioned. See e.g. the Wikipedia article on the election which states “An international delegation from more than 30 countries, led by the head of the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran's Committee on National Security, issued a statement claiming the election "happened in its constitutional time and date in a transparent democratic way", was "free and fair" and held in a "democratic environment, contrary to Western propaganda"“.

Burrobert 08:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ - in its current format. The initial deleted article was created by a clearly partisan block evading sock account, now banned. :FromNewsToEncyclopedia & M.A. Martin. It was a blatant example of an attack page. It was noted that the article "shows obvious signs of activist editing". BLP Noticeboard The only person who couldn't see a problem with the article was the person who has now rewritten it, in pretty much the same vein. The language is loaded, some of the sources are dubious Atlantic Council, Buzzfeed? or biased, The Syria Campaign? and there's no real attempt to cover the article subjects response to allegations made against her. Of note is the fact that her blog has been cited in reference to the section on North Korea but not when it comes to clarification & responses to claims made in msm. It's still a monologue of hit pieces; it's not biographical and, irrespective of the inclusion of so called "reliable sources", it's not neutral or written from a NPOV. Neither is it within the spirit of Wikipedia to pack an article with every negative source you can find, while ignoring the refutations because they are written in "unreliable sources". Or is it? Is that how Wikipedia deals with BLPS? --RebeccaSaid (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans I'd suggest that, if you're so interested in this particular article subject, you look yourself. Maybe start with her blog as it contains many articles & links to her responses to what she maintains is a "smear campaign". I ponder why you did not source and include that information in the first place, as you were so keen for the article to be reinstated & overhauled. This is just a rehash of the original attack page. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article's own blog posts are not WP:RS, but they can definitely be used judicially and sparingly to rebut some of the reporting in RS. For example, if Bartlett disputes the Channel 4 and Snopes fact-checks, we could perhaps add a sentence saying "Barlett responded, saying Channel 4 and Snopes were "smearing" her". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know they can be used, which is why I am pondering your reasoning for not doing so. With regard to "reliable sources", if the blog posts of Oliver Kamm, for example, are considered suitable for inclusion in his article, the blog posts of Eva Bartlett should be considered suitable within her own article - particularly where she is responding to serious allegations made against her. If the rules of Wikipedia allow only the negative sources to take prominence, while disregarding as "unreliable" anything positive, that doesn't make for a neutral biography at any stretch of the imagination. :) --RebeccaSaid (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No blog post by Oliver Kamm has been cited. Please familiarize yourself with the article that you want to delete. Also, my request still stands: If I misconstrued the RS to portray her negatively, point out where and how. If I did not include RS that reflect more positively on Bartlett, point to those and/or add those to the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the article, thanks. Please familiarize yourself with what I clearly stated "if the blog posts of Oliver Kamm, for example, are considered suitable for inclusion in HIS article, the blog posts of Eva Bartlett should be considered suitable within her own article.... " What's good for the goose, after all..... When/if I have time I will look through the blog and flag up her responses. In the meantime it still looks like a biased, one-sided attack page which should be deleted. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the misread. But what Kamm's Wikipedia article says has absolutely nothing to do with anything being discussed here, WP:OTHER. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. Thanks for flagging up WP Other. I refer you to: "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else." & "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes".

So, if an article subjects blog posts can be used within their own article (and they are widely used) - that applies to this article subject too. No need for those references to be "judicially and sparingly" used. That was my point & I believe it has got something to do with what's being discussed here. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck vote by non-ECP editor placed in violation of an arbitration remedy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so I've removed/rephrased some of the potential attack language, added a better, non buzzfeed, source at one point (and adapted the paragraph appropriately). In cases where clear sourcing can be indicated to demonstrate a statement is wrong, falsity can be stated. Additional direct statements for what she actually said in the more general areas can and should be added, but it isn't as if no indication is given for what she said to explain what/why others are commenting on it. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "attack language" to say that something is "false" if it has been widely described as such by reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have serious concerns about the reliability of this article, and the very first reference I checked failed validation (The Huffinton Post has misquoted their syndicated source). I have no comment at this time regarding notability, but due to OTRS and BLP considerations, I am requesting that this deletion discussion not be closed without opinions from at least three uninvolved editors, explicitly excluding Snooganssnoogans and RebeccaSaid. TheDragonFire (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The HuffPo article that misquoted Bartlett should be removed. As for third-party input, I definitely support greater outside input. I notified the BLP noticeboard earlier today. Perhaps the WP:FRINGE noticeboard should be contacted as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a straightforward attack page. As the Washington Post source itself says, there is an "information war" being conducted between the NATO states and associated media on one side and the Syrian and allied governments and media on the other, a war in which Bartlett is a prominent figure. This page doesn't get beyond being a salvo from one side in that war, right from the start when it was created as an attack page by a sock. Other than one anodyne paraphrase of her blog, all the sources in the article are overtly politically hostile to Bartlett without exception. All those hostile sources are government-friendly media or parastatal NGOs from countries that are direct belligerents or that sponsor armed rebels in the war to overthrow the Syrian government and all of whom are taking part in associated information operations. The Atlantic Council, in particular, is backed by NATO, US armaments firms and Gulf monarchies and tasked with discrediting people like Bartlett. Outside the tendentious sources, the page is uniformly hostile to its subject in tone and content and uses belittling and pejorative language like calling this journalist a "blogger" and using "Assad regime" for the Syrian government. The reader can learn almost nothing about Bartlett's work from the article. Her actual body of journalistic work is not usefully referenced. Very little of the article is actually about Bartlett or her life; it's all about the opinions of people paid to be hostile to her. A balanced, informative page about this journalist could be written, but this low-quality stub isn't it, and it's way worse than nothing. Toss it. 121.72.173.10 (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I must commend the IP contributor for finding their way to AfD for their first and only edit. Your statement of "all those hostile sources" when a significant portion of the sources within are classified by Wikipedia as very reliable. Additionally, the Assad regime was functionally used as the standard descriptive term to represent that side during much of the civil war, as equivalents usually are and have been during civil wars. Finally, if you are going to make such broad-sweeping accusations, it is probably wise to provide some excellent, non-tendentious, sourcing, given that an indicated failure to do so underpins much of your criticism of the article. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I in turn must commend you with equal sincerity for your understanding of how IP addresses work⸺until now I never realised that you were allocated one at birth and carried it with you throughout the internet until parted from it by death.

To reply to your point about reliability, I would just point out that reliability isn't a kind of permanent infallibility that falls on a source once it's designated as reliable, like being elected Pope. Even reliable sources are notably less reliable when they have a partisan engagement, as in this case the Washington Post article for one admits it does. The Western reliable sources have a less than stellar reputation for maintaining reliability in respect of Western governmental campaigns to justify wars. The Tonkin Gulf incident, the Kuwaiti babies who weren't thrown out of incubators, the Iraqi WMDs that didn't exist, the Viagra that wasn't given to Libyan soldiers to rape, all spring to mind. All these false narratives were promoted as reliable in reliable sources back in the day, when the corresponding war was being promoted to Western publics. What this means is that the degree of partisanship in the particular piece of writing being cited should be examined critically in such cases, rather than simply citing reliable sources to create an article with a POV overtly hostile to the subject of a BLP. This hostile selection of "reliable sources" is precisely the form of abusive editing that was exposed in the notorious Philip Cross case and resulted in his topic ban. It should be noted that Bartlett was one of the "goons" that Cross taunted over his hostile editing. Allowing the deleted attack page of one of Cross's victims to be replaced by another similarly hostile one would perpetuate the notoriety Wikipedia attracted through the Cross scandal.

Finally, even within a hostile source some of the contrary perspective can be found and cited if the source article isn't a total hatchet job. That didn't happen here. 121.72.179.235 (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is clearly notable due to significant coverage in mainstream sources. I toned down some of the accusatory language in the article, and it needs more work, with expansion to allow for some nuance. My first impression was that the article violated WP:NPOV in an egregious way. However, I read the article sources before commenting, and found it more plausible than not that the article was basically factually accurate. That said, action words are fine for creative writing classes but not necessarily for a neutral encyclopedia. Fairness should be uppermost for a WP:BLP. Curiocurio (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is clearly notable due to significant coverage in mainstream sources.--Panam2014 (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article may have issues, although they are not that serious, yet the subject has clearly received significant coverage in reliable sources, so passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is quiite clear her bloging, and various claims therein, has attracted attention and SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep deletion is not an article improvement process. if you think there are BLP problems, fix them. Queen-washington (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – seems to be a notable blogger who went on trips and has a strong viewership. Some independent sources; enough to pass notability guidelines. Redditaddict6 9 15:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Randi Marainen

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

Not notable. Geschichte (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - so the sources given provide nothing more than 1 line mentions, and the same applies for much of the coverage available in a BEFORE sweep. However, Source 1 - Suicides is an extensive piece (even excluding quotes) on Randi about her family and community's issues with suicide. Source 2 is more like a large mention and I don't believe it satisfies Sig Cov. I believe both are reliable and independent. I'm not sure whether WP:GNG or WP:BASIC is met. More specifically I do not believe either WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE are met. Both these judgements, my source judgements and (especially) the finding of sources could reasonably be queries - I was on the verge of at least !voting neutral, so please do your own BEFORE sweeps given the potential variability. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. W C M_email 12:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is part of a month-long (August) initiative to create articles on indigenous women and as such is still being developed. If you still feel the need to delete it, please do so in September instead of negating the work that has been done on the article to date before then. -Yupik (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yupik: - given that the AfD is on notability grounds, it shouldn't really matter when the consideration occurs, so long as some decent BEFORE sweeps are done, since there either will be, or won't be, some suitable references in the ether to find. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles on her on Swedish websites, but I don't have access to them since they're behind a paywall. I can go through the Sámi ones, but not this week; I'm swamped with workwork. -Yupik (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think someone who is fluent in Swedish should look at the sources. I'm pinging Ipigott, since he's a polyglot. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl: Thanks for pinging me. The description from Swedish TV in connection with the Rubus Arcticus awards is impressive. I'm pretty sure Yukip will also be able to come up with more background from Sami and other Scandiavian sources.--Ipigott (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds promising, there's a good amount of time left, so hopefully something will turn up. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what she has in the Ájtte museum collections -Yupik (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: From the awards she has received, she already appears sufficiently notable in Sweden.--Ipigott (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe the sources are sufficient to show GNG, and she has received two significant awards. --bonadea contributions talk 14:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Majlis Asian Society

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

Delete The reference is for the original society founded in 1896 and I cannot find references that this society even exists. Fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think. If I'm reading this correctly, the article title refers to the 1896 society, the text of the article refers to the 2018 society with a slightly different name, and the reference refers to the 1896 society? That is confusing. I did find a couple of references to both the old and new society, but nothing to show significant coverage from RS. Tacyarg (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 202.238.67.135 is admonished to tone their comments down in future. We can do without the personal attacks. Randykitty (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PayU

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

In essence, an advertisement. Plus, the company clearly doesn't pass the notability guidelines given the available coverage. Bradgd (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, before marking pages for deletion Bradgd, do you ever check the previous discussions just a couple of week back? Did you spent even 1 minute to check the references in every part of the world, there are atleast 50,000 newspaper references from every top newspaper. Really please don't waste time by nominating a page that is way ahead of notability, indepth coverage. 157.37.188.0 (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, the nominator is a new account holder and seems to have, not enough experience on the companies. Definitely agreed with the previous nomination, it is a definite keep. 202.238.100.180 (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very odd. What account were you using with the previous nomination? HighKing⁺⁺ 18:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 202.238.100.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The previous nominator, DGG withdrew the nomination because one of the Keep arguments put forward was that PayU is a large company and DGG believes this should be a part of the criteria for establishing notability. Unfortunately though, it isn't part of the criteria (and maybe it should at least be part of the consideration - I'd support it as a criteria depending on how to classify a company as "large"). For now though, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. References are mostly routine, based on announcements or mentions-in-passing and all fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. In the previous AfD, Nosebagbear listed a handful of possibilities. This from Business Review is a press release. For example, here's another remarkably similar article with the same facts and details. This from siasat.com has no attributed journalist and would therefore fail as a [WP:RS|reliable source] and it is not clear that the information provided came from a source unaffiliated with the company. It is also the exact same article as this one, this one, and this, and this, and so on. This from Business Standard also has no attributed journalist and would therefore fail WP:RS and would fail WP:ORGIND for the same reasons. It states at the bottom This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed. It is also based on a company announcement - it is a basic PR. The paywalled WSJ article appears to be a funding announcement but I do not have access so I cannot comment further. The ad hominen attack by the anon IP address aside, this BusinessTech reference they provided (and I'm assuming they put forward the best they could find) in the previous AfD focussed on the CEO of PayU SA fails as it is not intellectually independent and is not significant coverage. This reference is clearly based on a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND and this moneycontrol reference has no attributed journalist and is also based entirely on a company announcement (repeated, for example, in the Times of India). HighKing⁺⁺ 18:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. he alternative would be to merge this as a section into the parent company, Naspers. In addition to size, an additional consideration for businesses that are part of a corporate structure is the degree to which we want to combine the material into a comprehensive article. There are 15 brands listed the Naspers article; all of them have separate articles. Eight are media companies, which we generally give somewhat preferential treatment to; the other 7, including this one, are internet social media or marketing companies, which we usually are more stringent about. Coverage should have some criterion besides the accidentals of what there happens to be articles about, because essentially all articles about any of these will be to some extent PR, and which ones we choose to count as RSs is more or less arbitrary. That';s the key problem with using NCORP for companies--there is no really clear distinction. We've seen that even the most reliable media seem to have articles that seem inspired by PR with contents that overlap what is clearly PR in the less reliable media. The distinctions we set up 12 years ago and modernized this year simply do not hold up to reality in these fields. I'm not going to present an argument for why the particular sourceshere are or are not sufficiently usable for notability , because for most of them I could equally well argue in both directions. DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, Last time you have withdrawn the nomination with Speedy Keep and this time you are asking for Keep or Merge, did you went with the flow last time and also this time again. It seems that you are very confused, things are simple, either the company is notable or either it is not. It is a big surprise that Wikipedia:ADMIN are not sure of policy and are admin from a long time, trolling companies without the indepth knowledge. Sir, wake up, stop stalking companies, get a brush around and do it really little good, then start participating in AFD. I'm going to withdraw this. I am pleased to see more people arguing on the basis that the company is large or prominent enough to be important. I have been saying for the last 10 years that this would be a more realistic standard than the details of sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 08:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC). Can you please quit your role as Wikipedia ADMIN until you are not 100% sure and not confident, until you dont go with the flow. As an admin, do it and do it real good. After sometime physical libraries won't exist and I hope people will update them with knowledge and make WP a place what it is supposed to be. Go update the librarianship pages and that is what you know. 202.238.67.135 (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, Check this discussion, you dont even know what is notable and what is not. Your edit pattern seems to be very weired, do you really deep dive for sources or you are librarian so don't know how to search through browsers on the search engines. Oh, Google is one search engine and it helps in finding news sources. When will you surrender admin privledges here that you truly don't deserve? 202.238.67.135 (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question, With your User:DGG#my_approach_to_spam, so to ban my competitor website and their links on WP, I will insert their links like anything so that you will ban them. What will your approach to it? 202.238.67.135 (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that it's your website? or your company? or that you work for it? See WP:COI. If so, I think that needs to be taken into account in evaluating what you've been saying.

To explain a little further, at the previous afd I withdrew the nomination because I thought it was clear it was not going to get deleted and it seemed reasonable that there was notability . Now that the question has been raised again, I look at it fresh. I never claimed to be infallible, and if I make a mistake, or just think more carefully about a problem, and revise my opinion, I say so. In this case, I thought about the whole group of companies and am considering how to best handle them. As I said above, we can either merge them all into the parent company, or keep the major subdivisions as separate articles (the 2nd order subsidiaries of this one are already not separate articles, but discussed in it).

I do not consider notability only a matter of sources, and I've been saying so for many years now. I've learned to make arguments on the basis of sourcing, because it does matter, and many people think its the only thing that matters. people think it matters, but I actually think, and have increasingly said, that the differences between RS and nonRS sources in this area are a matter of interpretation, and can be argued either way. The new NCORP adjusts the balance a little, in an appropriate way, but it doesn't change the basis. I continue to think, as I've been saying for years, that in most cases what people actually do in afd discussions--usually unconsciously-- is to decide on some overall basis whether the subject is notable, and then interpret the sources accordingly.

As an admin, I make admin decisions according to what I believe to be the current consensus, whatever I may think personally. That's what I think every admin is obliged to do. In discussing what ought to be done, I give my own personal opinion, which on the basis of my afd record is most often, but not always, supported by the consensus of other editors. The consensus is the result. Unlike a few editors here, I actually believe in that principle. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found some references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. There are analyst report covering Payment Gateways. For example this Technavio Research report (link provides details of what is in the report) covers Payu (and others) in detail. Likewise, this research report from QYResearch. There are many others as well. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are several references that makes this company notable. I will be surprised to see that PayU is not notable. 202.238.67.135 (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 202.238.67.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company evidently lacks an in-depth coverage in the news media. Having gone through a lot of them, they are generally either not trustworthy or talking about routine events like funding, opening new offices etc. I’m surprised by those who voted or changed their mind to a keep. I’d argue them to take a second look. 41.42.141.146 (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 41.42.141.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreed with Highking, PayU has plenty of coverage.157.37.90.77 (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Of course, a company that "provides payment technology to online merchants" is going to receive a lot of coverage in business-related news, some of which is routine, but overall, enough significant coverage exists to qualify an article. Concerns about promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per my original sources and the justifications listed both in the previous AfD and this one (which overlap primarily). Normally I'd be polite enough to relist them all, but given the speed here I would just note that I believe NCORP to be satisfied, albeit only just (though I imagine other sources do exist). I also feel that @202.238.67.135: is both being rude and not entirely comprehensible in the process. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Xavier Social Center, Nepal

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 19:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient notice in a very small country. Additional refs:

– Nepal Home Page.

– Sufficient independence to attest to notability.

– Alcohol and drug abuse in Nepal.

– CTV Atlantic News: Independent verification of its work.

Jzsj (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A website with just the name, a related website, an article that does not mention the name at all, and a article about a creep who misused the centre (but without saying something significant about the centre). No good, as usual. The Banner talk 22:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another one with poor references that do absolutely nothing to establish notability by our standards.96.127.243.251 (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:NORG and WP:GNG. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 06:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – Has some source coverage, but per previous 2 comments and nomination, it doesn't fully pass notability guidelines. It might have some level of importance in Nepal, but there is no evidence or sourcing of that (even if it did, that might be original research). Redditaddict6 9 15:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LabsAdvisor

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. MER-C 19:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Economic Times, Livemint and others are trusted sources in India. I personally think that this startup is important for the development of the health industry. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this page because I thought that this kind of company is necessary for the Indian healthcare at the current situation where people are exploited by making them pay more for their medical tests. In my opinion this is a notable company because the leading news publishers wouldn't have covered it if it isn't. --Praveen1807 (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Praveen1807 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:PROMO. $200K in venture funding is extremely insignificant. Just a promotional directory listing. Sources are unconvincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP .Note the The Economic Times has only stated that the startup has raised funds in august 2015 and as of now it is a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Showrrn

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

The subject of this article is not notable enough for Wikipedia. What's more, the sole source doesn't even mention him! Definitely should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torrent01 (talk • contribs)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and I'm not finding any coverage in independent reliable sources that might count towarddd WP:GNG. Yilloslime (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unsourced (no mention of this name in the one ref) and no evidence of notability; Prod and BLPprod were removed, perhaps accidentally, while this was being nominated for AfD. PamD 23:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find any coverage that rises to the level of notability (or really any coverage beyond simple evidence of his existence), under ether "David Showrrn" or his previous name of "Joe Jee Mathew". cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AutoTRAX DEX

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

Non-notable and questionable product with frequenty changing product name, company name, author and web site every couple of months, but always trying to capitalize on the "Autotrax" name, which is actually the name of a well-known but completely unrelated product: Autotrax by Protel Systems. Before this article existed, the Autotrax article and various other articles were frequently SPAMed with information about this product, but since no reliable references can be found for Autotrax DEX (under this or any of its former names), and since some COI users have repeatedly tried to change the company name, web site and author once more without providing sources, and since these newer names do not line up with the only reliable company info found in UK business registries, all of this must be considered as some kind of SPAM by some SPA/COI users (including the company owner and apparent author of the software). So, it is really overdue to delete this article. However, I'm sure this will cause the legitimate Autotrax article to be SPAMed again. Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article makes no claim to WP:N for this EDA product. It gives details such as using Microsoft.Net 4 and having Microsoft Office interfaces, but those claims do not show WP:N. I don't know if it is a "questionable product" or an excellent one, but that does not relate to WP:N. A Google search turned up lots of info about downloading the product, but I didn't see any substantial comment about it. "A Guide to Low-Cost PCB Tools" is an EE Times article (https://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1319924). EE Times carries substantial weight, but AutoTRAX DEX is just listed as one product out of eight, and the author states he's only tried one product, DipTrace, and hopes to learn more about the others later. It may be a fabulous product, but I don't see notability. Glrx (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just saw that we already had an article AutoTRAX about the same non-notable product as discussed here. It was deleted some while ago. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. AutoTRAX is the trademark of Ilija Kovacevic, the developer of AutoTRAX and Active3D. Trademarks 2,469,410 and 2,461,452 See https://active3d.com/. See user forum http://forum.dexpcb.com/. AutoTRAX first marked in 2000, Over 18 years ago. AutoTRAX videos https://www.youtube.com/user/AutoTRAXDEX 1,116 subscribers, 308,520 views. Company detail https://active3d.com/about-us/. Seems like the objectors might have a secondary motive here. Censorship of competition. These are facts not woolly hateful thinking. Delete this deletion request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.213.44 (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

The only info I could find is this: https://www.trademarkia.com/company-kovacevic-ilija-3191588-page-1-2 and it is for AUTOTRAX, not AutoTRAX or Autotrax, the other is for Active3D. Both are expired for more than ten years.

However, this doesn't really matter, as patents, trademarks, wordmarks, your web-cite and forum, or youtube channels are no reliable references per WP:RS. And they don't help to establish notability per WP:N. For this you'd need independent coverage in serious magazines and journals discussing the features of the program based on their experience. Without this there is no encyclopedic relevance and not the slightest hope this article will survive.

The fact that there is no independent coverage over all those years indicates that the product is not notable. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Who nominated this for deletion. Please do your research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHemingway (talk • contribs) 16:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did my research and even tried to rescue the article for some while, hoping that reliable sources would be brought by. However, since this did not happen and since you and other single-purpose accounts and IPs continue to sneak unsourced information into this and related articles, this now has to go. Enough is enough.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No you did not do your research. I suggest the 'others' are antagonists. Anyway delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHemingway (talk • contribs) 23:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the article will. The deletion will still be ongoing. I suggest that you stop making attacks like this. Comment on contributions, not on the contributor. theinstantmatrix (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the contributor is in error then surely he/she should be brought to account. This is not an attack.

You say 'Surely the article will' then clearly the deletion is prejudged; so, delete it. Stop procrastinating and get on with it.

--(unsigned comment by User:DavidHemingway on 2018-08-13T11:28:22‎)

Please sign your comments with four tildes per WP:SIGNATURE - the software will then replace the tildes by your signature when you save an edit.

"Predicting" the outcome of this discussion is not any kind of prejudice on the editor's part, but just gathered experience based on the criteria our articles must met and the very weak and completely unsourced state (with even contradicting statements like the author's and company's name) the article in question is in.

Your connection to the subject puts you in a position that you might know where the product was discussed in independent sources per WP:RS. If so, than please bring by those sources ASAP. This could help show notability per WP:N and is the only way for the article to survive. But please first read those linked guidelines, because bringing by links to the company's site is not going to help - such information could only be used to further flesh out details in an article about a subject much beyond the threshold of notability already.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not adding more. Others keep deleting/changing what I add. I wonder who? Best just delete the page ASAP.

--(unsigned comment by User:DavidHemingway on 2018-08-14T01:31:27‎)

You blanked the page ([13]) and sabotaged another, no wonder you were reverted.

In general, it's good that you added information to the article, however, it is important that the information can be sourced from reliable references per WP:RS, and also for the information to be correct. Your edits were changed where they appeared to be incorrect or unsourced.

For example, it was correct to state the company name is "DEX 2020 Ltd.", not "Kovac Software" or "AutoTRAX Software", as is stated on one of the web-sites and inserted into the article, because DEX 2020 is the name found in the business registries (the most trustable information we have found so far, still assuming this is a legitimate business at all). However, the company is (and also the former wordmark was) registered to Ilija Kovacevic, not Iliya Kovac (as inserted by you among others). The web-site and also various older statements of the author in newsgroups are full of inaccuracies and bold, but unsustained statements. There is a documented thread where the author of the software was publicly revealing private customer information when he didn't like some statements of that customer, indicating that it can be dangerous for end users to be a customer of that company. "As is" this is nothing that we have to judge about at Wikipedia, but combined with several other observations, it raises the question if the company and software is for real and a serious business, or if it is some fake, SPAM or even malware operation. These observations include:

The public presentation has been a "moving target" for years with frequent name changes of the product, company, site, and author, which is the opposite of what a serious business typically does. It looks as if someone is trying to cover up a past track record. In contrast to these changes, the product demo screenshots remained static over the years (as if there would be no ongoing development on the software at all). The site tries to give the impression of being a large corporation with lots of employees (most of them looking too "good" to be real) while it actually appears to be a one-man-show - so this is all made up and fake. At the same time the web site does not even reveal the most basic information about the core functionality of the program any potential user of EDA software would need to know before trying out the product - so only absolute beginners in the EDA business, who do not even know what to look and ask for, would be lured into trying out the software. This combined with the "kidnapping" of the "Autotrax" name of a famous (former) product competing in the same market, the complete lack of any independent coverage of the software, the advertisments (SPAM) and copyright violations inserted into various Wikipedia articles (including this one) by several single-purpose accounts (including the author of the software) and IPs makes the whole operation look untrustworthy and as if someone is trying to trick users into downloading some executable from a fake site rather than sell some serious EDA software, which could be used to develop more than only trivial designs.

While the observerations are fact-based (anyone can look them up in the web and in Wikipedia edit histories), the conclusions drawn from them could be subjective. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that the company web site cannot be trusted at all, and this also holds true to unsourced information added by unknown editors. Since our aim is to provide correct and unbiased information our readers can depend on, we need Wikipedia articles to establish notability per WP:N and statements be based on reliable references per WP:RS. Unfortunately, they do not seem to exist for this product.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to I submit a formal complaint about your conduct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHemingway (talk • contribs) 09:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Matthiaspaul who has the power to delete pages remain anonymous and does not display any of his credentials to legitimise his role in Wikipedia? I expect this edit to be deleted thereby proving my point about this user. This user should have his rights to delete pages removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHemingway (talk • contribs) 11:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you missed this somehow so far, this "AfD" (Articles for deletion) process is a discussion about the question if Wikipedia should have a particular article or not. Users are encouraged to research the subject and present their (educated) opinions, ideally citing our policies and guidelines (which are based on Wikipedia community consensus, not personal preferences), and in the end an admin will decide on the validity of the arguments presented and the state of the article if it gets deleted or not. Wikipedia articles must be notable, that's why the article content or arguments presented in this discussion must establish notability based on criteria given in WP:N. Also, statements in an article must be supported by reliable sources per WP:RS. If you can, please bring by those sources because I tried to find them and could not find any. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You said 'Nevertheless, the bottom line is that the company web site cannot be trusted at all' This is totally wrong, insulting and based on flawed argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHemingway (talk • contribs) 08:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat How to I submit a formal complaint about your conduct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHemingway (talk • contribs) 08:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will you read and accept WP:RS (a Wikipedia guideline based on community consensus), as you have been instructed many times now? Then you'll know why the company site (and related sites) is not a trustable source. This has nothing to do with personal preferences.

The discussion is pointless unless you bring by the requested reliable independent references to support the statements in the article and establish notability. Time is running... --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just delete the page. What are you waiting for? Stop procrastination. As I said, I'm done with Wikipedia as I do not trust the content as it is censored by the likes of Matthiaspaul. It cannot be trusted. Do not delete this comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHemingway (talk • contribs) 11:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete – No sources, no notability, nothing of any importance in the article. Absolutely no reason at all to keep. Redditaddict6 9 15:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Super Strong Delete – Yep, do it already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHemingway (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zechariah Seal

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

There is no evidence that the subject of this article is notable: a search for "zechariah seal" brings up nothing but false positives and wiki mirrors, and a search for "ben hayim seal" (the article's previous name before a cut-and-paste move) brings up only 2 hits. The article does use 8 citations, but 7 of these support tangential statements like "here's what chazak ve'ematz means" and "the date palm is a traditional Jewish symbol"; the last cite is a link to the website of the guy who created the design. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Creating discussion page on behalf of IP nominator. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own on the nomination at this time. --Finngall ^talk 18:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 18:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing but Wikipedia mirrors comes up. Can an admin throw this into Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia since it somehow survived for 3+ years? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I assumed that it was an ancient seal discovered in an archaeological dig, but it's actually a design of recent origin with no measure of notability. This doesn't appear to be a hoax but it still doesn't merit an article. Alansohn (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. None of the sources even mention "Zekhariah Seal"; the references only refer to distinct elements of the seal, but not to the seal itself. Also, all the images were created by the page creator. An elaborate hoax IMO. Yoninah (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It might not be a hoax (certainly the article creator seems to be using the seal in the article), however it definitely isn't close to meeting GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of the article appears to be completely lacking in notability. It is probably just the creator of the page's family seal and he or she probably just created this article for promotional purposes. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced it's a hoax, per se. Someone just writing down their family lore could, in all honesty, produce a page that lacks all evidence of notability and is full of unverifiable information. Absent any positive evidence of deliberate deception, I'm reluctant to throw the "hoax" accusation around; but I don't see any reason to keep the page, either. XOR'easter (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sourcing, I searched several combinations of key works. fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per prev. comments and nom even though it seems somewhat notable. No prejudice against a redirect to the Judaism or to create this section there and merge to it. Redditaddict6 9 15:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Story of Wenamun. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beder (ancient ruler)

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

Contested prod, unsourced, very brief, and doesn't look notable. PatGallacher (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod ? Could you expand on this ? The article could easily be referenced for anyone with an access to a literary critic of the story of Wenamun. I am more hesitant on the notability : if Beder is only and just a character in the story of Wenamun then yes. If however he can be connected to an actual ruler of Dor then he is notable enough.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. The subject is actually a real character in an ancient myth (see above), however just being mentioned in an admittedly obscure myth doesn't make it famous or anything. Torrent01 (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Here I found a scholarly paper discussing the evidence for whether "The Report of Wenamun" is pure fiction (not a myth, which it certainly isn't) or is based to some degree on an official report. It goes through the evidence and arguments pretty thoroughly. A basic point is that the Egyptian rulers mentioned in the text—Smendes, Tentamun, and Herihor—were all real people. However, the paper never mentions any outside evidence that Beder (spelled Bader in that paper) existed. If Beder is only known from "The Report of Wenamun", there is no reason to have an article on him separate from the article about that story.

I notice that there is also an article on Zakar-Baal or Tjekerbaal, another Near Eastern ruler who appears in "The Report of Wenamun" (more prominently than Beder) but does not seem to be known from any other source. That article should also be deleted, but I don't know how to start an AfD discussion from within another AfD discussion. Can it simply be added here? The two articles are similar in status and content. A. Parrot (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Story of Wenamun. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Story of Wenamun. Even their existence does not seem to be well-attested, so the mention at Story of Wenamun covers this just fine. › Mortee _talk 21:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Story of Wenamun per above unless sources can be added plus some form of notability which I don't see happening anytime soon. Redditaddict6 9 15:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Satyodaya Centre

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 18:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria for notability. Possible additional refs:

– Facebook.

– Buddhist recognition.

– Colombo Telegraph tribute.

– Sri Lanka Brief news interview.

– S. Janaka Biyanwila. The Labour Movement in the Global South: Trade Unions in Sri Lanka. London:Routledge (2011) p. 52. ISBN: 978-0-415-58080-9 states that Satyodaya Centre has "made significant interventions in community development issues and organizing workers" and also "launched the Coordinating Secretariat of the Plantation Areas (CSPA)."

– Daily News article.

– Daily News archive.

– Tom Reidy. Critical Mass. Create Space. ISBN: 978-1481161169. describes it as "a good example of inculturation in action."

– Asian Tribune article.

– Sunday Times article.

– New Internationalist article.

– Listing by American Institute for Sri Lankan Studies.

Jzsj (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The usual collection of social media, related sources and passing mentions. The Banner talk 19:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jzsj: You can't be serious on the first one. Also there are a lot of mentions, which do not prove notability » Shadowowl | talk 19:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen Facebook on some schools pages, not of my creation. Please focus on those you can accept and ignore the rest. I suggest that some of the mentions in independent news media above do satisfy for reliability and notability. But that awaits community consensus. Jzsj (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely as an external link. But external links are not sources. The Banner talk 20:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does "most likely" mean here? And please clarify, or furnish a specific reference to official Wikipedia policy when you make declarations like the above. Jzsj (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have what, 25,000 edits? Stop pretending you do not know what a good source it, or read WP:RS, as that is where the policy is. If you really do not understand what a good source is, you should stop editing. 96.127.243.251 (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is been used on other pages should give reason to clean those up, not to add more shit. » Shadowowl | talk 21:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete half of sources are from the org itself. As demonstrated in the discussion above, the article creator does not understand WP:ORG or WP:RS, thus, this article on another non-notable org.96.127.243.251 (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This has the feel of being about a single mission station, in effect a local church, even if it has some external sourcing. If I am wrong, I am willing to reconsider. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ateneo de Zamboanga University. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ADZU Social Development Council

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

Fails WP:GNG. Just a part of the Ateneo de Zamboanga University without separate notability. The Banner talk 17:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A full 50% of the courses are from the organization itself. The rest of the sources do not establish any public awareness in the org, as one would expect through multiple reporting in independent sources.96.127.243.251 (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Ateneo de Zamboanga University article and redirect to a section there as not independently notable but a valid subtopic in that article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge Not independently notable. My searches have not found enough third party coverage to justify a section in Ateneo de Zamboanga University, but I would support adding a sentence. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- This seems to be some kind of outreach programme of Ateneo de Zamboanga University, or rather an agglomeration of four of them. It probably has a status similar to a university department or faculty, something for which we do not usually allow separate articles, but it is probably notable enough for plain deletion not to be an option. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kidderminster Hospital Radio

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

No claim of significance given. References not great - the BBC one only mentions it in passing. I have added one citation but can't find others. Tacyarg (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence that this was more than a run-of-the-mill hospital radio operation. The article appears to have been created by someone involved with the station, whose User:Sean tomlinson page features non-Wikipedia content such as a list of other stations to which he had sent demos, along with more recent inappropriate content added by an IP (I am also flagging that page for CSD U5.) As to this page, no evidence that this met WP:GNG provided or found. AllyD (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sephora. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sephora UAE and KSA

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

The subdivisions are clearly not significant on their own to deem a Wikipedia page. The page should probably be deleted or merged into the original article Bradgd (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sephora. I'd say merge, but I don't think there's enough useful content to justify it. I already redirected this once and author reverted it without explanation. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 15:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Sephora ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The article topic is not notable on it's own, being only a small part of an overall global company. I note that some content was merged already into Sephora. This is a reasonable place for information about Sephora subsidiaries. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for the same reasons as above although it could be argued that a user would not use this as a search term without first finding the parent article. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Xyphus. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthrodon

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

Non-notable character from dubiously notable game. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 14:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No apparent claim of notability in the article. Search shows no reason to believe any claim would be supported by sources. Bakazaka (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any indication of notability for this. The game is probably notable, though I won't look at it in-depth unless I have to. This one creature within it is not. › Mortee _talk 21:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above discussion, though I would not be opposed to a redirect to the game. Aoba47 (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Xyphus per nom and comments before mine. Redditaddict6 9 16:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshimoto Uchida

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

I do not believe this individual meets WP:NBIO in that I can find no published, reliable, independent secondary sources covering him. I cannot check Japanese language sources, but the article does not make a claim for notability either. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Shinbundo source in the article is an interview. Subject was profiled in Sankei News's regional coverage [14]. Most of the other mentions in RS are not in-depth and fall into two groups: a wire service story about a demonstration of swordsmithing held in Russia that was picked up by a bunch of sources (e.g. Okinawa Times [15] Shikoku News [16] Oricon [17]), and regional coverage of the restoration of a particularly interesting sword (e.g. Shizuoka Shimbun [18]). Borderline for WP:GNG, but all the wire stories are basically the same story, and most of the coverage is not in-depth coverage of this subject. In addition, there does not seem to be a corresponding jawiki page, and the photo copyright situation appears unlikely to withstand scrutiny. Bakazaka (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should be histmerged with Draft:Yoshimoto Uchida. Dekimasuよ! 18:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No apparent encyclopedic notability and I could not find enough coverage from which to build an article. No reason for a histmerge as no significant edits were made after the draft was copied to mainspace. › Mortee _talk 21:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly speedy WP:A7 (though that low bar may be borderline met). Definitely does not pass GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I have a longstanding love for the artistry of old swords form Japan (they did it more beautifully than Europe, they just did.) Although I would love to have kept an article on a man who restores them because he admires them as I do, (there's a special exhibit that includes some lovely ones on loan to the Met in NYC this summer by a private collector who probably could support an article, but I digress,) I am just not finding sources in a Latin alphabet that support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per all comments and nom. Redditaddict6 9 16:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Morganna Bridgers

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

I cannot find any articles about her, just a few mentions. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like she's been in some stage productions but there's not a lot out there about that either. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 12:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. There is some coverage, but not enough to sustain an article. › Mortee _talk 21:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight Dinner

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

Fails WP:NFILM and the WP:GNG. Significant RS coverage not found, what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. References in the article are self-published, promotional, or unselective databases. The "Pink Grand Prix" (1st best film) award is not well-known or significant. This is a fanzine competition, while the film is direct-to-video release. K.e.coffman (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not seeing substantial coverage in reliable sources, does not pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG –Davey2010^Talk 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Coia

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

Not much seems to have changed since this article was deleted in 2016 following a very clear consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antony Coia. I discussed this new incarnation with deleting admin who said that a couple of new sources exclude deletion under G4.

I have gone through all references present, several do not mention Coia and none of those who do mention him offer significant coverage. I do not see a pass under any criteria for musicians and ensembles or our criteria for composers and lyricists, nor under the bassic criteria for people/the general notability guideline. Sam Sailor 11:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 11:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 11:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 11:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All references (at least the ones I added) mention Coia (see credits in trailers). Marion994 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Marion994 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Obviously a trailer will often include the name of the score composer. That a source, an article on the internet e.g., embeds the trailer does not mean that the source mentions the composer. One example is https://screenanarchy.com/2015/08/the-musk-first-teaser-for-usitaly-slasher-gets-the-music-right.html it does not mention Coia at all. Apart from you, nobody has added sources to the article. Sam Sailor 15:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My question is...how is this even online? Article was voted for deletion 7-0 and as much as I am against deletions (proven , of course that notability IS established) this article should not be on wikipedia. Antonio the vomit Martin (coooomooo?) 03:20, August 10, 2018 (UTC)

Delete. He's obviously been keeping busy, but I'm finding mere mentions: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stаcking window manager

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

St%D0%B0cking_window_manager uses incompatible characters and is confusing at best. An almost identical and more developed article exists at Stacking_window_manager. Per WP:DEL5 I believe this page should be deleted. Kadane (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a direct copy of Stacking window manager made in 2008 with weird characters in the title page. I'm really at a loss as to how this lasted this long. Brad v 12:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nominator. Thanks for nominating on behalf after I raised up in IRC help. Xaiver0510 (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. You left seconds before I typed that rationale. I waited a bit and figured I would just nominate for you. Kadane (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need to have two articles about one topic (for an entire decade...). Pavlor (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a particularly sneaky content fork (a Cyrillic A instead of a Latin one). Kudos for finding it. I wonder if there are others using similar tricks, and who might be best placed to find them. › Mortee _talk 08:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mortee: Thanks for pointing this out. It appears that not a lot of articles use Basic Cryllic Script. In case you would like to review them I ran a database query here. When I get time tonight I will expand the search to other character sets as well. Let me know if you want to receive that query as well and I will drop it off at your talk page. Kadane (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kadane: sure, thank you! I'd be curious to see what comes out of it. › Mortee _talk 22:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mortee: I found the page via WP:Orphan accidentally, since is is Basic Cryllic Script, a lot of them probably are ophans as well. I highlight to the wikiproject as well. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaiver0510: a good project. I spend time trying to fix orphans too (most recently Shady Side (steamboat)). Kadane's database query found several other articles that were misusing Cyrillic, which we've now moved. Now I've seen one, I'll be more likely to be able to see when another page is doing the same, so thank you again for finding this and bringing it up. › Mortee _talk 01:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to this article being a duplicate of an existing article (and for the bad faith on the part of the author in creating it in the first place). JC7V-constructive zone 03:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to the preexisting article per all comments above. Redditaddict6 9 16:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Wilson (actor)

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

Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Only support is IMDB entry. reddogsix (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actor fails WP:GNG. Willing to switch to draftify if someone finds a good source. The Duke of Nonsense^{What is necessary for thee?} 18:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - literally a Redshirt actor. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only minor roles in IMDb, fails WP:NACTOR. Narky Blert (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has no reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. He has starred in lots of movies and TV shows, but only in one-time or as a recurring character, never any lead roles. I think a deletion is best since he seems to pass no notability guidelines such as WP:NACTOR. Comments prior to mine make a good point as well. Redditaddict6 9 15:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suhail Al Zarooni

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

Possibly notable, but highly promotional in nature and poorly sourced, making it difficult to determine what is even salvageable. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 18:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From the lead and the sources in it, Al Zarooni is notable. Keep the article, cut out the unsourced sections, i.e. down to a stub, and try to build it up from reliable sources bit by bit. This version will still be in the history for future editors to look to for search suggestions. › Mortee _talk 09:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dunia Montenegro

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The awards listed, such as "Ninfa Award - Best Supporting Spanish Actress ", are not significant and well-known. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets of the WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 14:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although poor, meets WP:GNG. Montenegro has a mainstrame carrer[24] who meets WP:NACTOR and figure present in erotic fairs [25][26].Guilherme Burn (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks like there's little attempt at WP:BEFORE with this template nomination. The Google News link shows she has been covered by sources such as the BBC [27], El País [28], and Expresso [29]. She also passes PORNBIO with her multiple Supporting Actresses awards in Spain's industry award. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing falls far short of the multiple substantial coverage in secondary sources needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBiO & GNG/. –Davey2010^Talk 19:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:PORNBIO criterion #1 of "won a well-known and significant industry award" in her own right by winning several awards in Barcelona International Erotic Film Festival. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article in es-wiki and pt-wiki looks like a case of Wikipedia: Autobiography, es-wiki created on 21 nov 2006‎ by user DuniaMontenegro, pt-wiki created on 20 aug 2008 by user Dunia. The en-wiki is create in 8 Oct 2007‎ by user @Epbr123:, what I invite to give your opinion.Guilherme Burn (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Who wrote the article isn't important. › Mortee _talk 09:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others pointing out mainstream coverage; also appears WP:BEFORE was not followed but nom made assumption of non-notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The awards do cover WP:PORNBIO#1. The sources identified by Morbidthoughts above should be incorporated into the article. › Mortee _talk 09:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes necessary notability guidelines through awards. Redditaddict6 9 16:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Villages (Southern Highlands, New South Wales)

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

one-off real-estate neologism only specifying a single village Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence it's a term used anywhere else and certainly not in any official manner. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Someone created this tiny, poorly referenced stub and then abandoned it, but it appears to be a widely used term; I get a lot of reliable-source results in this search: [30]. The Sydney Morning Herald identifies the Southern Villages as Exeter, Bundanoon, Penrose, and Wingello ([31]). SunChaser (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At best this is a dictionary definition that belongs on Wiktionary. It certainly doesn't have official status. The towns that this refers to are all part of the Southern Highlands. In essence, it's the same as referring to a housing estate within a suburb or town.. It doesn't warrant an article. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AussieLegend. SunChaser's Google search further suggests non-notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Southern Highlands (New South Wales). It is a term occasionally used, but it is just a loose local term and not a discussed independent topic. Southern Highlands (New South Wales) needs better internal structuring to accommodate localities by subregion, which I think will be very helpful to the reader. Some kind of map would help. I considered but decided against recommending a merge to Bundanoon, New South Wales. These southern villages could be broken out of the "Villages, small towns and localities" of Template:Southern Highlands. "Southern villages" is a very poor top level descriptor, it may work locally, but elsewhere I would call these towns "New South Wales Southern Highlands towns on the Campbelltown-Goulburn railway line". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete–real estate term that adds nothing useful to Southern Highlands (New South Wales).--Grahame (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – There should be more information on the villages in New South Wales in this article with examples and lifestyles, but regardless, the topic isn't notable. There's no real reason to keep. Considering the comments above and the nomination, deletion is the best option. No prejudice against recreating the article with my suggestion on the villages themselves. Redditaddict6 9 16:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that articles exist for each of the villages mentioned in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Muhammad Ammar Kazmi

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

Not an elected MP. fails both GNG and Wikipedia:NPOLITICIAN. Saqib (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 01:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonnotable politician. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll relist again, and request that editors provide justifications with their !votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL as he's never held elected office. He stood in an election, but wasn't elected and just being a candidate isn't enough to justify an article. No indication he passes WP:GNG by being notable for any other reason - searches using his name as per the article and the slightly different spelling used in the reference don't find anything of value in this respect. Neiltonks (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-winning election candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if they didn't win the election and thereby hold the seat, then they need to be demonstrated as notable for some other reason besides the fact of having their name on a ballot, such as passing the notability standards for their prior career before they ran as candidates. But there's no such claim being made here at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-winning election candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NPOL; candidates for office are not inherently notable. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Any non-winning election candidate who hasn't held office is not notable. There are no other sources displaying notability so this article outright fails all notability guidelines. The article has grammatical errors that I can't understand, it is poorly written and it is a stub with no information useful to anyone. Delete. Redditaddict6 9 16:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sas Carey

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

Not notable biography. While exhaustively sourced, all sources are either not WP:INDEPENDENT (the individual's various blogs and projects), or are not RS (essentially a dozen different websites of small film festivals). A Google News search finds only two short articles that contain any biographical information about Sas Casey herself: the 2200 circulation bi-weekly newspaper Addison County Independent [32], and Vermont Public Radio [33]. There are a smattering of other sources in which a film she's worked on is reviewed and her name shows up as a credit. Chetsford (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of sources and an active public figure. The blogs are external sources, not hers, but I agree should be deleted. Worth keeping, but needs editing and some sources deleted. Older articles about her are there with a deeper search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fall109 (talk • contribs)

"Lots of sources" - Such as? Chetsford (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know the case in particular but if these are films she directed that are reviewed in reliable sources, then they grant Notability per NFILM. Newimpartial (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If what are films she directed? This is not an AfD on Sas Carey's films. This is an AfD on Sas Carey. WP:NFILM covers films, not filmmakers. Chetsford (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's my bad. The applicable guideline is linked at WP:DIRECTOR. Newimpartial (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG with the VPR source (VPR is, with the Burlington Free Press, more or less the paper of record in VT) and 8 pages of biographical discussion (pp. 213-221) in recent academic book Daley, Y. (2018). Going Up the Country: When the Hippies, Dreamers, Freaks, and Radicals Moved to Vermont. University Press of New England. ISBN 978-1-5126-0283-8. FourViolas (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and withdraw as nom. With the addition of the substantial section from the UNE Press book which FourViolas found I'm convinced this pushes it just over the edge into the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Charles W. Kingston. Sandstein 07:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Kingston (Mormon)

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

Per source searches, this subject has received no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources; just a few passing mentions. The article cites one primary source, but from searches, no usable sources to meet WP:BASIC appear to be available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be totally lacking WP:PSTS and WP:GNG. Deaddebate (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However, the cited source is not "primary", but clearly secondary. It is an entry in a published encyclopedia. However not all encyclopedias use reasonable notability criteria, and this is true especially of some of Jenson's later volumes. It is clearly a secondary source though. However there is not enough to show that Kingston was notable. Counselor in a stake presidency alone does not confer notability. On the other hand I think Ward E. Pack, son of John Pack, who was conselor in a stake presdidency and mission president in Hawaii twice might pass because he was for one term in the Utah Territorial Legislature.see Legislative assembly rosters reference in p. 41, 45 I maybe should have kept with the article I drew up on him, but I was not sure. His successor in the legilsature, Samuel F. Atwood, whose daughter married Ward E. Pack's son, Ward E. Pack Jr. (I am descended from that marriage), served the next year (1877) for Summit County. They repeated this exchange of positions in 1878 and 1879. What is still not quite making sense is that according to other sources Pack was mission president in Hawaii from April 1876-April 1878.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We ought to think, today, about how important this person was, in 1935 standards, when, during the Great Depression, he founded, for 1,200 members the Davis County Coop, which is now a redirect, see first source below, page 242. So we ought to ask the question, how would the media cover him in 2018? And at the time the media did cover him, and we have several secondary sources too. Per those sources he was the leader of a large community. The coop has been under scrutiny for different allegations, but this is a different story. If this is another Charles Kingston, I apologize. Also, see the second source, below, where there is an entire paragraph about the Kingston's clan, formed by Charles himself, embracing poligamy in 1931 and being extremely important as a clan in Utah. A third source has a whole page about his activities in early 1900s as an important community leader. The secondary sources actually abound, and I think this is more of a case where they need to make it to the article and enrich it, but as far as notability is concerned, I find the article clearly notable.--1l2l3k (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

W. Paul Reeve; Ardis E. Parshall (2010). Mormonism: A Historical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 242–. ISBN 978-1-59884-107-7.
Changing World Religions, Cults & Occult. Jerry Stokes. pp. 162–. GGKEY:7PKT22E2TP3.
Robert E. Bonner (29 January 2016). William F. Cody's Wyoming Empire: The Buffalo Bill Nobody Knows. University of Oklahoma Press. pp. 114–. ISBN 978-0-8061-5477-0.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please take some time to evaluate the sources that were presented earlier today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of the sources listed directly above by User:1l2l3k:

Mormonism: A Historical Encyclopedia – consists of three short sentences related to Kingston. This is not significant coverage.
Changing World Religions, Cults & Occult – this is a book published by a person named Jerry Stokes. It appears to be self published, and is not a reliable source
William F. Cody's Wyoming Empire: The Buffalo Bill Nobody Knows – has around two paragraphs of information about Kingston.

– I am still not convinced that WP:BASIC is met, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content into Charles W. Kingston, the son, who has notability and keep redirect to show in talk page the result of this AFD discussion. --1l2l3k (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into Charles W. Kingston, fils, as per WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Deaddebate and Johnpacklambert: Still delete, or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source Kingston Journey: Insiders to Outcasts; Polygamous clan clings to its vision of LDS life; Kingstons Cling to Vision Of LDS Lifestyle, Greg Burton, The Salt Lake Tribune; 16 Aug 1998: A1. excerpt from text of article about a contemporary grpup of polygamous led by Kingston descendants: "The great-grandfather of John Daniel and David Ortell Kingston -- whose alleged acts of incest and child abuse have brought a national spotlight on polygamy in Utah -- was a leader in the Mormon Church who helped colonize Wyoming.... Charles Kingston, a high priest in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was appointed by President McKinley to be a Wyoming land commissioner. Kingston abhorred LDS Church President Wilford Woodruff's manifesto of 1890 announcing an official end to plural marriages. He also believed Utah's leaders turned their backs on the faithful in 1896 by prohibiting polygamy -- then a bedrock tenet of the Mormon religion -- to join the United States." Articles also confirms Kingston's appointment by Pres. McKinley, and details of son's life. I think this, along with the fact that he has an entry in that Mormon Encyclopedia, and Cody book, gives us more than enough for a MERGE to the son's article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The appointment by McKinley is a very, very minor one, not at all a sign of notability. The mention of Ardis and Reeves encyclopedia does not amount to sustained major coverage of this individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Charles W. Kingston. Deaddebate (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing as no consensus, in part because while it has been posited herein that this album may have charted, no proof of said charting has been provided herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dünya Yalan Söylüyor

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

Fails WP:NALBUM » Shadowowl | talk 16:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No reason given by nominator for why the article fails WP:NALBUM. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree with Doomsdayer520 - under what guidelines should this article be reviewed? On its face, it appears notable in Turkey, and from a quick glance appears to have charted in that country. SportingFlyer talk 05:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I will not pretend I have extensive access to Turkish sources. However, if it did indeed chart and as a consequence of the nom’s poor non-statement, I believe there is a good prospects to establish notability if someone with access can confirm the extent of coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer. Appears to have charted and has coverage in GBooks etc. 250,000 sales (source in the band's WP article) and was awarded the Golden Orange for "Bir Derdim Var". James500 (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Detonador de Sueños

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Unsourced since 2006. » Shadowowl | talk 16:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No reason given by nominator for why the article fails WP:NALBUM ,and per WP:NEXIST a current lack of sources is not a reason for deletion when the article could possibly be improved. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it would be a surprise if this record wasn't a big seller in their home country of Argentina, seeing as the albums immediately before this one were multi-platinum sellers. But it's true I can't find any really good sources online that discuss the album in detail. Richard3120 (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The associated tour included Europe, according to the Spanish-language Wikipedia, and a concert in Argentina with 65000 fans. Even if we can't access 2003 music charts from Argentina, I am satisfied that the album must be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Richards3120 and Eastmain. Also has coverage in GBooks etc. James500 (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005. Sandstein 07:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Festivali i Këngës 43

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

PROD removed, nominating for AFD. Unsourced article that in its current state fails WP:NEVENT. Someone speaking Albanian might need to look into any accessible Albanian sources. » Shadowowl | talk 16:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Probably notable as one of the leading annual events for Albanian music, but the article could be merged into Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005, as the festival is where Albania's entry into the Eurovision Song Contest is chosen. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I'd say it's notable, given that it is one of the most popular events in Albanian music, but it should be merged with Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005. Goprake (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This concert is notable as the national eurovision final for Albania. There may be scope for merger with the Albania eurovision 2005 article which has similar scope. In either case, deletion is not going to happen. No opinion as to whether this should be kept or merged. James500 (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erotas (song)

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

Not notable. Harut111 (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions.Harut111 (talk) 10:20, 10 August 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 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had a look at the Armenian version of the article to see if there was any desirable material there, but the translation appeared to be identical to the English article. Definitely not a notable song if it was only covered in one source.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 04:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. I can't find indication of notability, it's already discussed at Sirusho and a redirect with a parenthetical disambiguation is unlikely to be useful. › Mortee _talk 09:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After two full relistings and then some, no consensus for a particular outcome has occurred in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unistraw

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

Promotional. No independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This reference helps establish notability, assuming that the publisher is a reliable source, as it appears to be. This is a bylined article in a reliable source, although it was probably inspired by a company press release. This is another bylined article, although it too was probably inspired by a company press release. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - all the mentioned articles seem a little too positive to make me think that the writers/publishers etc are completely reliable, but I'll stick with WK until someone gives a stronger indication. Food Australia journal also looks like it might have a but on it, but here I'm challenged both by reliability judgements and also what it might actually say. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the content has not been written and refernced in an encyclopedic manner, all the sections except the introductory paragraph is unreferenced. But the positive point is, the sources are a decade old and discuss the subject. It can be improved if labbled with any maintenance tag Rgyalu (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Rgyalu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman My intention is not for keeping the page live, I expressed my thoughts and it is up to the Admins to decide depending on the sitution. I voted for delete on another article and got no tag of, "has made no other edits outside this topic." Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgyalu (talk • contribs) 08:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TNT / WP:NCORP. Overly promotional with language such as "UDS can add flavour, energy, vitamins, nutrition, and even pharmaceuticals - to liquid sipped through it"! "Future applications"! Etc. The coverage offered above is passing mentions, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP, which can also result in a promotional article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sipahh. The article is promotional, and Eastmain's sources are "trade press" in nature. Their most prominent product is a logical redirect target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP, specifically, WP:AUD, due to all of the sources being niche, industry publications. In my own searching, I'm seeing trade journals specific to the dairy industry, the plastics industry, and everyday coverage of routine business announcements. I wouldn't be strongly opposed to a redirect to Sipahh, but it's not really clear that's notable either. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Sipahh. The history is a bit confusing, but a Google search confirms that Sipahh is the most popular brand name for the Unistraw, so that seems a more obvious target for a merge. Don't be confused that there is also a company called Sipahh which apparently is owned by Club Trading and Distribution [[34]] or that in India, the brand is represented by Unistraw Holdings, [[35]] owned by India-based SRS Group.[[36]] Hopefully someone can sort this out. Maybe some of this can go in the background section for the Sipahh article, for context. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - yes, it may be promotional, but it's a brand people are familiar with. It has some recognition, but I'm unsure if it's enough to delete Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a brand people are familiar with is not one of the criteria in WP:NCORP :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know that, but I don't see any other reason to delete it. I think there should be some waiting time for people to edit before deletion, maybe a month. If nobody comes up with anything, then delete it Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kochi Orthodox Diocese

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

No sources found after an extensive search for third party sources on Google. I don't know Malayalam and neither have I access to sources specifically pertaining to the South Indian christian community. In its current state I believe that the article does not meet GNG. Regards — F R ⁺ 07:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FR30799386:I added some sources to the article about Metropolitans ruled diocese. Kindly please see that.PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 14:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Path slopu - The article which you linked to does not mention the Kochi Diocese itself. Rather it talks about the metropolitians who served there. Additionally, I would like to note that the church publishing these articles is affiliated to the same religious parent organisation as that of Kochi Orthodox Diocese — F R ⁺ 12:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As an article about a diocese of a substantial denomination, this article is about a notable subject. It is a bit thin as yet, but that is a matter of improvement, which is not an AFD issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron:Thank you for your help.PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 04:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron - Could you provide sources to support the fact that the church is notable. It may be a case of chronic filter bubblitis but the only source I am finding on using google search are facebook pages. Additionally, I don't grasp your reasoning about denominations. — F R ⁺ 12:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FR30799386: I don't understand — the article is not about a church but an entire diocese. You need evidence that Oriental Orthodoxy and the Saint Thomas Christians are notable? —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no special knowledge, I am merely applying WP precedents. The policy that I apply is that a denomination is likely to be notable, but a local church is usually not notable. A substantial area organisation within a denomination (such as a diocese) will normally be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peterkingiron. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per historic consensus that large diocese of a significant denomination are included in Wikipedia, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia:@Atlantic306:Thank you for your help.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 12:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Avaneeswaram. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Orthodox Church, Avaneeswaram

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

No sources found after an extensive search for sources on Google. I don't know Malayalam and neither have I access to sources specifically pertaining to the South Indian christian community. In its current state I believe that the article does not meet GNG. Regards — F R ⁺ 07:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Avaneeswaram which is a small village where this non notable church is located. The Church itself fails WP:NBUILD due to lack of detailed coverage or WP:GNG. So the stand alone article for this church without WP:SOAPBOXING is not feasible. --DBig Xray 17:24, 10 August 2018
Merge with Avaneeswaram matching the probable outcome for another church in this Indian province. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FR30799386:@Peterkingiron:I added a citation in article from the book published by the church as the souvenir of reconstruction namely Mariyan(Malayalam: മരിയന്‍). It is correct and valuable because it is published by the church. So, kindly keep this article.PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 05:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this "valuable" book is published by the church then it is called WP:SPS. Such a source will not help to establish the WP:N of this article. WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBUILD will. User:Path slopu Please confirm that you are reading all the linked policies that is commented in the recent discussions at AfDs where you are involved. If you have really read and still dont understand the problem, then I am afraid, there appears to be some WP:CIR issues or WP:COI issue. If there is any WP:COI you have to declare it per policy. if you have trouble understanding a policy then you can ask on your talk page or WP:HELPDESK--DBig Xray 11:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is still only a local church. These may well be significant locally, but that does not make then WP-notable. The one source can be cited in the merged article. Adding a list of clergy and other matters does not help with notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Path slopu can you clarify from where did you get these images of Churches that you are adding. It does not appear to be taken by you, and looks like you are copying them from youtube videos (because of the resolution of the image) this is against WP:COPYVIO policies.--DBig Xray 17:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Avaneeswaram seems to be a good option here. The Church building isn't particularly notable itself for historical/cultural reasons. I agree that it may be important in that particular village and therefore, a merge serves the purpose.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I share DBigXray's concerns about the image. I had nominated one for deletion here. It is not clear who is the owner and without that information, it shouldn't be uploaded as own work.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Path slopu - In answer to this you made this huge post explaining how you didn't have a COI about those churches. Could you explain in that context this comment where you refer to the community of the church as "our community". — F R ⁺ 09:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Eliza Williams

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only sources I can find in a WP:BEFORE search are WP:ROUTINE about being the oldest person in the world, mostly short obituaries. Per wikipedia policy, being the oldest person in the world does not grant an automatic notability presumption. SportingFlyer talk 06:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to the chronological list section at oldest people where she is appropriately listed. Nom is spot on. There is no guideline/policy that the oldest living person is automatically notable. The last AFD closed as no consensus back in November 2015 and no improvement has been made in regards to sourcing or expanding the article beyond the absolute bare basics (name, born, married, died) or fluffy longevity trivia (ages of siblings). Even if the sources meant she was somehow notable, there is nothing of interest to say about her other than her name, birth/death dates and that she was the oldest in the world at some point. Easily handled on a list per WP:NOPAGE, WP:PERMASTUB and the biographies section at the WP:WOP wikiproject. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above. Tacyarg (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article fails WP:GNG and the little encyclopedic information it contains (name, nationality, age, birth/death dates) is easily displayed on a list, which it already is elsewhere, instead of in a longevity trivia filled Permastub. Information about her relatives and the standard "secret" to her longevity question she answered add nothing of value to this encyclopedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Shibari

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:ENT. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The awards listed are fan-based or niche. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. For starters, Nerve is independent from the adult industry (which isn't a requirement per Wikipedia guidelines anyway, no matter how many times it is argued in deletion discussions—would the Martha Stewart article have non-food related sources?). But more to the point, she has had extensive mainstream coverage outside of her awards. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 13:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject meets both GNG ([37][38][39][40][41][42][43]). The New York Times first sentence: "Kelly Shibari moved from Japan to the United States at 15 to attend college..." And she meets WP:PORNBIO #1 (Awards). No WP:BEFORE done at all. For christ sakes, there is RS in Australia too.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I consider the PORNBIO guideline too lenient but this person has plenty of coverage in reliable, independent sources unaffiliated with the porn industry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above - Certainly meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Henderson (inventor)

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Not notable. Of 13 refs, 11 are marketing for hoverboards. No coverage. scope_creep (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article of a run-of-the-mill businessman. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG. Coverage is either routine, non-WP:INDEPENDENT, or incidental. In addition, many sources (e.g. Kickstarter, USPTO), are simply not RS. Chetsford (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Internet of Battle Things (IoBT) Collaborative Research Alliance (CRA)

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

CSD declined. This appears to be a bunch of buzz-words for an a research program that has not yet started; the references don't demonstrate that WP:GNG is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This program has been active for 2 years and secondary sources were included in the article. I'm in the process of adding more.Rafreyna (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just added a few ISes; the coverage seems to be there. The search links at the top of the AfD are rendered basically useless by the unwieldy title, though, so I just searched for "Internet of Battle Things". That would probably be a better name for this article. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the commendable mild citation-bombing; seems sufficiently well ref'd now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Internet of Battle Things passes GNG. It is indeed a buzzword adaptation, but so is Internet of things and a number of other subjects (but so is Cloud computing, Grid computing, and a number of previous buzzwords which were the same).Icewhiz (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Choi

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

Article PRODded with reason "Drummed up bio with large list of publications by (not about) the subject. Is said to be "president" (in fact, secretary general) of the grandiose sounding "World Congress of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Techniques", which, in fact, has just 51 members... No indication whatsoever that this meets WP:ACADEMIC." Article dePRODded with reason "Notable due to holding highest level administrative post at major hospital", apparently a reference to WP:ACADEMIC#6. No other evidence of notability was added (although the huge list of publications has been removed). However, heading a hospital is not an elected position and in addition it is not clear that this is a major hospital. It's website is bare bones and it isn't even clear to me whether there are any other physicians there than Dr. Choi. In short, we have no evidence of notability, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has won some awards, but these are his self-published claims in his own CV, so fails verification. And I cannot find evidence of notability of those awards. The "Foremost Scientist of the World" is a vanity award issued by the International Biographical Centre. The fact that such an award appears on a professional's CV makes me suspect that the other ones are equally non-notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unless substantive, clearly-independent sources turn up (the language barrier makes this possible even when English-language searches fail). There are reasonably well cited publications on spinal issues by someone with his name (most likely him) in Google Scholar, so he could squeak out a pass of WP:PROF#C1, rather than having to rely on WP:GNG, but even in that case we need adequate sources for our content about him. And while normally we would accept self-published sources such as a cv by a researcher, for factual details about their career, the vanity-press awards cast even that into doubt. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable surgeon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong forum. See Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Sandstein 07:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pandan Indah (Selangor state constituency)

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

should merge to Pandan Indah (state constituency) angys (Talk Talk) 04:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do the constituencies cover exactly the same area and it was just renamed? If so, I agree with a merge. If they cover different geographical areas, then I don't think it should be done. Number 5 7 09:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page Pandan Indah (Selangor state constituency) was initially created to replace the prior constituency page Chempaka (Selangor state constituency) following the 2016 redelineation exercise by the Malaysian government. Seeing that Angys has moved all contents from the page Chempaka (Selangor state constituency) to Pandan Indah (state constituency) just recently, both pages can be merged. A few additional details such as 2018 election results and the new polling districts following the 2016 redelineation exercise should be included in the new page too.

Comment Wrong forum for this. See Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers. SportingFlyer talk 05:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Additional discussion regarding the article can continue on its talk page hereafter. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CO2 rocket

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

Eggishorn's PROD put it best: WP:NOTHOWTO-type article unsourced and orphaned for over 8 years. Andrew Davidson removed it without explanation. Would be helpful to hear from these users. Tera TIX 04:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's easy to find sources. For example: Scientifc American or Royal Academy of Engineering. Those are experiments for children but there are also other interesting references out there such as those which report that Max Valier used carbon dioxide rockets – see History of Rocketry and Astronautics; Max Valier - A pioneer of space travel; Rockets into Space]. As there are various ways that carbon dioxide can be used as a rocket fuel or propellant, what we have here is a broad concept. Andrew D. (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: thanks for your quick reply and the new sources. It's now pretty clear that this is notable, but probably needs a rename and, as you said, a broader scope that the current content indicates. However, this is a discussion for the talk page, not this AfD, which should be speedily kept. Tera TIX 09:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gunfire locator. Sandstein 07:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic threat detection systems

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

This may be a notable topic, but the only content here is promotional for Serenity Payload. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into Gunfire locator. Maybe some into Artillery sound ranging. StrayBolt (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very recently created fork of Gunfire locator / Acoustic location - and a brief essayish fork at that. Not much to merge if at all.Icewhiz (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Reason: WP:G5. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Buddha 46 BC

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

Confusingly written, inaccurate, unreferenced article that appears to be about a subject for which an article already exists, Emerald Buddha. Not a plausible search term. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Paul_012 (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. I don´t see anything in this article which could be merged with Emerald Buddha. The text is unsourced and incomprehensible. JimRenge (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been creating a lot of article that just duplicate existing articles. I'm wondering if there isn't a CIR issue here somewhere. GMG ^talk 12:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to me as original research since it does not cite any source either in English or Cambodian. The Cambodian author has added a caption section, where s/he mentions the source of this information from her Grandmother. Hence it can be safe to call it as a myth or WP:OR. Emerald Buddha already exists and s/he has also linked this article with it. She possibly considers both items different but I cannot support this article without valid sources. Also I agree that the Cambodian author has WP:CIR problem in writing and understanding English, which may explain why she is disregarding the talk page warnings. Please keep a watch to ban the user if they don't pay heed. --DBig Xray 13:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. DBig Xray 14:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. DBig Xray 14:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I note that Emerald Buddha does not give its history before 1434. Assuming this is the same statue, this article smacks of original research. Or perhaps we should let speedy take its course. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Max Whitaker

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

I considered PRODding this, but decided on this given the article's age. Poorly sourced, and I can't find any evidence that the subject meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as recommended above. -- Hoary (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search did not find good sources to support either GNG or ARTIST.96.127.243.251 (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per basic. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Redditaddict6 9 16:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clara W. McMaster

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to short passing mentions and name checks. The primary sources in the article and found in searches do not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Clearly doesn't meet WP:BASIC. And serving on the board of an organization of Sunday schools doesn't confer notability. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Doesn't pass any notability guidelines. Member of a church who wrote songs for kids. Redditaddict6 9 16:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorochromasia

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

This is either original research from Autoctono~enwiki (talk · contribs), or badly-mangled semi-automated content about a hapax legomenon. Either way it should be deleted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't quite see what the problem is? (apart from the text being somewhat sub-standard, and a lengthy moronic passage about citation counts, which I just removed) It certainly appears to be a term in use [44], and the description and refs seem serviceable enough for a start. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite seeing the problem either. It's definitely a term extant in the literature, and the text was about average for writing by scientists (in other words, unremarkably bad). It might be better off described as part of a larger article (e.g., fluorescein), but I'm not a cellular biologist and wouldn't want to make a definitive statement about that. XOR'easter (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple WP:BEFORE style search (which should have been done before AfD) shows this a property of some cells and is the basis for an assay. With hundreds of GScholar and Gbooks hits each, the topic looks notable to me. The article is a new stub and could use improvement, but there are no problems that would make deletion necessary. Merge as suggested by XOR'easter is a reasonable approach as well, but that can be accomplished by ordinary editing. Hence, keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 15:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring eclipses

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

This topic holds no significance whatsoever. What benefit exists to knowing what movies include eclipses? Why not list movies with thunderstorms or rainbows? Songwaters (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTESAL: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." There are ten sources that talk about eclipses in films collectively and list examples, and Wikipedia can follow suit in consolidating the films and the common themes. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is legimate because of the quality of the references. When multiple reliable sources discuss films featuring eclipses, as they do, then it is entirely legitimate to create this list. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the topic has substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources already referenced in the article, passes WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ~~WP:NOTSEAL~~ WP:NOTESAL as argued above. XOR'easter (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all three articles. – Joe (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Turtle Group

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

A web search turns up little mention of "Dancing Turtle Group" or its linked subsidiaries "Dancing Turtle Records" or "Dancing Turtle Films", let alone any substantial coverage of it. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP. Largoplazo (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are subsidiaries and suffer from the same lack of notability:

The three articles are by the same possibly COI author. Largoplazo (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: do not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Corporate spam and an advertorial walled garden. K.e.coffman (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dancing Turtle Records - I haven't researched the others. Normally for a record label I check for number of notable artists, but that criteria doesn't really apply for a "folk" label such as this. Instead, in this case I look for discussion in ethnomusicography journals etc. I can find no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources at all. The label seems to have no impact. Non-notable by any criteria. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that all should be deleted, fails WP:SPIP, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prev. comments and no reason to keep. Redditaddict6 9 16:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Down

AfDs for this article:

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

I became aware of this mess of an article when summoned by bot to an RfC. The subject is a Utah businessman whose only claim to fame appears to be that he gets sued a lot by the SEC. Fails WP:BIO. Previous AfD ended inconclusively but the subject's notability has not increased with the passage of time, except perhaps for his getting sued. Coretheapple (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article has been a long-running battleground of various POV editors. I don't see any SNG that would be met, and the references are either about lawsuits, or are of the form "local businessman runs non-notable business". power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sufficient sources exists. I was on the fence, thinking it was really only about him being sued a lot but besides that, he runs unusual businesses. No longer one event. POV pushing can be countered with page protection. Ifnord (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Sorry, nowhere close to meeting GNG other than coverage of being sued and trivial coverage in other weird issues.∯WBG^converse 10:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I could probably justify a close with what we've got now, but sending this back out for a week to see if we can get some more cogent analysis. There's lots of fails WP:WHATEVER, but I'm not seeing any analysis of why he fails those things.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extensive coverage over an extended time period and extended geography. The fact that in-depth coverage of a subject focuses on litigation doesn't detract from notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nom and previous comments. Good points on both sides, nomination makes the best. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 09:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Juanito Apinani

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

Unsourced article about a person who fails WP:ANYBIO. Includes a lot of praise. » Shadowowl | talk 21:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can an etching be a reliable source? see this one Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the subject of a major painting is likely to be notable. Someone needs to look in the appropriate sources, which are likely to be Spanish newspapers of the period. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but without prejudice to recreation if sources come to light. A WP:BEFORE check turns up nothing, and the article itself is written almost like a tall tale. The painting itself can be notable, but that doesn't necessarily mean the subject is; it could simply be someone the artist saw do something one day. That being said, if DGG's suggestion that Spanish newspapers from the 1800s can be found, I'm okay with this being recreated. Red Phoenix ^talk 22:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And in addition to the previous comment, there is original research ("he became famous..." is not in the source cited) so it fails WP:OR. Doesn't seem to pass notability guidelines entirely, but with more sources it may reveal so. Redditaddict6 9 08:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Belfield

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

I'm unsure about this one. It has 46 citations, but around 30 of them are to the subject's own website and/or YouTube channel. A number of the non-primary references are to interviews that the subject has conducted, but they're not about him, they're about the interview. My concern is that if one stripped all the primary-sourced and not-about-the-subject content out, you would be left with the "Radio Controversies" section, which is not exactly flattering (and is only sourced to 2 reliable sources anyway once one removes the primary ones). Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If in-depth coverage in two reliable sources exists, then notability has been established. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the point though - it's not in-depth, it merely reports that he did something ridiculous on his local radio show and was censured for it. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tallahassee, Florida#Festivals and events. Sandstein 07:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tallahassee Food Festival

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. Local event without national or regional news coverage. More of a news story. Rogermx (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps a word has been omitted from the name. The article's creator may have been referring to the Tallahasee Greek Food Festival at[45] Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was mistaken. There once was a Tallahassee Food Festival. [46] But I agree with the nominator that notability has not been established. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tallahassee, Florida. This seems to be what we do with these food festivals. It may deserve a mention in the town article and redirect. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As nominator, I would definitely support a merge. Thank you Eddy. Rogermx (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Tallahassee, Florida#Festivals and events. Subject is non-notable and hasn't existed since 2011 if the website history is any indication. Obvious merge target would be Tallahassee, Florida#Festivals and events, but that is just a list of events, some of which have similar names to this and may or may not be related (e.g. Tallahassee Wine and Food Festival, the article for which actually discusses the Tallahassee Fitness and Food Festival). Unless that's sorted out, the merge is not obviously adding more information than a redirect, and a delete isn't losing much. Bakazaka (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tallahassee, Florida#Festivals and events; neutral on it being a delete+redirect. I don't see any sourced content to merge, even if the format issues were resolved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maredudd ap Ifan

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

Another individual in genealogical line that was subject of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas ap Rhodri ab Owain Gwynedd. This wrongly contains a flag that it is unreferenced - the individual does receive passing reference in an article on the Wynn family in DWB, but this is insufficient to provide individual notability. The claimed title, "Head of the House of Aberffraw" was not a title, or even a recognized position. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NOTINHERITED. Agricolae (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect -- The descent of the Gwydir family from the Princes of Wales is notable. The content that was at Tomas ap Rhodri ab Owain Gwynedd could be merged to House of Aberffraw, which could then be a redirect target. The alleged title "head of the house of Aberffraw" is misconceived, because primogeniture was not the Welsh inheritance practice until the Law in Wales Act (or Act of Union) 1536 applied English law to Wales. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I contest the notability of the descent (which was from the princes of Gwynedd - not all of Wales). It has not received significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. There was nothing on the Tomas ap Rhodri page that merited preservation. Anyhow, this is the wrong target. What we know and is undisputed is the relationship between this man and the Wynn family. What is claimed and is not undisputed is that they connected to a prince 400 years before. If it is to be redirected, and I don't see why it should be any more than we create a redirect for any other genealogical entry, then it should be toward a Wynn page and not toward a page on their elaborate claims, when it isn't even clear the subject was aware of the claim (if it had even been concocted yet). Agricolae (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Redirect~~ ~~to Sir John Wynn, 1st Baronet#Works~~ (and maybe Sir John's genealogical work deserves it's own article, but that is for another time) and Maredudd certainly needs mentioning in the Gwydyr Castle article if he isn't already. ~~The info we have about Maredudd is sketchy and he is only briefly mentioned in Dictionary of Welsh Biography as part of a much wider article about the family.~~ Sionk (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed 'vote' to Keep, per the other sources found below. If someone is still mentioned 500 years after their death, they're surely notable enough. Sionk (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has paragraph even in most recent Burkes (as Maredudd ap Ieuan ap Robert), which means he's been mentioned in probably every edition, notes he purchased and rebuilt Gwydyr Castle, bringing it into the possession of the Wynn family. I don't know anything about the House of Aberffraw, but there's a real problem because of the various spellings of his name. I think he's a significant cog in the lineage of several Welsh people and thus frequently referenced. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikimandia. His involvement with Gwydyr Castle makes this more than genealogical and this, for example, suggests that he was of exceptional political importance and this, for example, says he had a lot of land (the main source of wealth and power at that time, when landowners had their own manorial courts and private armies). And he satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to ASAP (TV series). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ASAP Fanatic

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

Fails WP:NSERIES. Unsourced since 2007. Includes some pov like hottest. Strange enough the infobox contradicts itself, saying that there weren't any episodes but also saying that it aired 2004-2005. » Shadowowl | talk 23:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The infobox doesn't say there weren't any episodes, just that the number of episodes is unknown. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ASAP (TV series) Basically an aftershow for that before anyone ever knew what an aftershow was; really not much more notability than that. Nate • (chatter) 00:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ASAP (TV series) as not independently notable but a valid inclusion there, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ASAP (TV series) per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Speedily deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) WP:A7 and WP:G11. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IKASI

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

Company lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable sources both on pages in a WP:BEFORE search and thus does not pass WP:NCORP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:46, 10 August 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 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk: Handy History Handbook Barkeep49 -- Thanks for your commentary. I realize this is a very small company that hasn't been featured in mainstream press clippings. Nevertheless, the company exists, does close to $10 million dollars annually, and is listed and described in detail at the various sources provided. These are not subjective sources. They are entirely objective listings of active companies. Anything resembling advertising has been stripped. The company is involved in cutting-edge work that IS very germaine to a highly-visible development that will change all of our lives very shortly: AI, or machine learning. It is not difficult to imagine future researchers combing through articles here and elsewhere to see when/where/why learning and probabilistic algorithms began to spread rapidly across the commercial arena in the early 21st century. All I'm trying to do here is to signal the company's existence and its area of expertise. I'm happy to change anything necessary. Thanks for your time! Handy History Handbook

@Handy History Handbook: I don't really doubt that it exists or does 10 million annually. However, Wikipedia has decided not every company gets an article. This page talks about which companies get an article, and it does require mainstream press clippings which is why I nominated it for deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk: Handy History Handbook Barkeep49 -- Thanks for the response. I understand. I'll keep working on finding clippings to support any future entry if this one doesn't stand up. Thanks!

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page had already been speedy deleted once by User:Cullen328 but the page was swiftly recreated https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=IKASI. Recommending salting as well. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7: G4 doesn't apply because it wasn't deleted after an AfD. I see you've also tagged it A7 and G11. No comment on those. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What tag would apply for re-creation of deleted articles? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7: G4 is the right tag. However it requires that an article was deleted via a community discussion. If it was deleted with a speedy deletion process (or PROD) it is not eligible for G4. If you have further questions about this, I suggest we do it at your talk page or mine as it's off topic to this AfD Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained more in depth on my talk page, but as Barkeep said, G4 will only apply if it is "recreation of material deleted via discussion." However, if an article is speedy deleted and recreated, and the original criteria for speedy deletion still apply, you can tag it for speedy deletion with those criteria.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, preferably speedy delete. Doesn't pass WP:NCORP. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've carefully examined each of the sources, as well as searched for more sources, and it doesn't look like any of them are reliable, independent, and significantly cover the topic, so this doesn't pass WP:GNG. WP:NCORP is similar to the general notability guideline, except with some extra criteria that would make companies notable if they apply, and none of these criteria seem to apply either.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The content of the page looks about the same, so original CSD critieria applies. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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