Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 August	29 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 delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indestrutível

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Creator was just recently warned to stop creating articles of non-notable songs a few days ago, and has since continued to create articles such as this despite several editors either AfDing them, or proposing a speedy deletion. A look at their talk page and recent contributions tells that this is a routine issue. White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 23:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it has no standalone notability demonstrated within the article, and none was found by searching. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NSINGLE/WP:NSONG in any way JC7V-constructive zone 00:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of any notability . Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:40, 2 September 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 Morning Again. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Wylie (musician)

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

Nominating on behalf of an IP, their reasoning is “WP:ROTM artist; no reliable sources present, current sources depict social media pages and interviews.” Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Morning Again per WP:MUSICBIO. No indication of independent notability, and I am not sure the band meets the notability guidelines, either. Teemu08 (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Morning Again; not independently notable & does not meet WP:MUSICBIO for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Manfredi

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

does not meet GNG. Available sources focus mainly on his marriage, which is BLP1E. No indication that he meets any of the SNG that apply to people in the entertainment business. John from Idegon (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will look for some sources to beef up the article.Patapsco913 (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, you removed the filmography...so we need to have a reference for every single film in their filmography in order to include it? Why is not the fact that the film in question has a wikilink to the screenwriter? This does not seem to be the practice for screenwriters or directors or actors. And look at this page 2001 in film with no references? So how does it work?Patapsco913 (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD discussion is not the place to have a content discussion. It is also not the place to enquire as to how to evaluate a source against the standard at WP:RS. That would be the article talk page and Teahouse respectively. However, you should probably read WP:OSE. John from Idegon (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I have restored the film credits section and added sources to verify it. This subject has written many screenplays for many notable films, and as such, meets point #3 of WP:CREATIVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - thanks to Northamerica1000, and feel free to close. John from Idegon (talk) 05:44, 4 September 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 List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 12:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

USS Politesse (SP-662)

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

This is an article on a 30' long US Navy patrol boat that did nothing remarkable, was captained by no one remarkable, and to which nothing remarkable appears to have ever happened. No one died on board, the boat was not hit by any torpedoes, no peace treaties were signed on its deck. As near as I can tell, the only remarkable thing about it is that there is a Wikipedia article on it. I understand that there is a kind of knee-jerk response that says, "If it was a US Navy vessel, it warrants a Wikipedia article." But the logic of that has reached the level of absurdity if we are going to host articles on every piece of wood or metal that the US Navy ever made float. A loose noose (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the boat was small and may not have a particularly exciting career is not in itself a reason for deletion - there is some coverage in reliable sources (i.e. DANFS here) although whether there is enough to justify a standalone article is a different question.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look at that, Nigel, and it looks like it is an archival catalogue entry— yes, it does say some basic things about the boat, but the database it comes from looks like covers every boat in the US Navy, without discrimination. We have pretty clear rules with regards to the kind of coverage that a living person has to have before qualifying for a Wikipedia article, it's hard of fathom (get it?) that the rules for a patrol boat with a non-history like this one's should be so much more generous! A loose noose (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy (which doesn't currently list this vessel [and probably needs to be split up, but that's beside the point]). I see no claim of notability (and DANFS is arguably not independent of the subject, so I doubt that'd count toward the GNG). Parsecboy (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, added to USN patrol vessel list. The fundamental dilemma is we should either have articles for just about every vessel of this sort (WWI ID and SP designations), or limit the vast majority of them to a list entry. There are several hundred of these vessels. RobDuch (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If the paucity of sources on these vessels means they will permanently be stubs, then I think we have an answer on that question (and whether they pass GNG). Parsecboy (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That certainly seems consistent with existing Wikipedia policy. We might also want to consider that no other existing Wikipedia article other than a few list articles even mentions the craft. Maybe this is partly because there is simply nothing to be said about it. A loose noose (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ I don't think the prospect of the vessel remaining a stub for a long time is a good enough reason to delete or redirect. Many, many ship related articles have been stubs for months or even years before being expanded.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 01:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But what if there doesn't appear to be anything with which to expand it, nor any prospect of anything in the future? A redirect would leave the possibility of an article being created IF somehow something does come up someday, but right now no one seems to be able to find anything to show that this vessel is notable in a meaningful sense. A loose noose (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is of course true, but I'm fearful of any precedents that may be set if we delete or redirect an article simply because it is a stub.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 02:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not advocating deleting the article because it's a stub. I'm saying it ought to be deleted/redirected because it will permanently be a stub, because there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that we can use to develop anything more than the handful of lines from DANFS. Put another way, the article does not pass WP:GNG. There are plenty of stubs (and indeed currently non-existent articles) on notable topics that simply haven't been improved yet because no one has gotten around to them. That is not the case here. Parsecboy (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've struck out my vote.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 14:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into list article per some views of Nigel Ish. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge into a list article per Parsecboy and Nigel ish. This stub will never be expanded and would be suited to have the relevant info from it in a list article. JC7V-constructive zone 17:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge into a list article per Parsecboy and Nigel Ish. Llammakey (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge into a list article with regret - it simply isn't notable. I see many others like this in the list which have articles and should be treated likewise. It's a shame as I've never seen a commissioned ship not be notable before and now we will have some as black ie no link/article and people will wonder why Lyndaship (talk) 11:52, 30 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 The Undertaker#Other media. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 12:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undertaker (comics)

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

Article is unsourced and I cannot find anything to support notability. Was de-PRODed under inherited notability. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly I havn't been able to find any real in depth coverage.★Trekker (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The_Undertaker#Other_media if reliable sources can be found, otherwise Redirect. The target covers the basic info. --Killer Moff (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively per Killer Moff. Publication dates and creator names should be included at the target. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to above target with pub info from GCD. Looks like there was a Wizard magazine promo and then the ongoing series of 10. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:40, 1 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Altar Boy Gang

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

Failed television pilot that went to air as a one-off special, but never got the range or depth of reliable source coverage needed to clear WP:NMEDIA on that basis. This has been flagged since 2008 as needing more sources, but it doesn't have any more sources -- on a ProQuest search, the only other "coverage" I can find is straight reprints of the one source that's already here, but one source isn't enough to make this permanently notable all by itself in the absence of any other substantive coverage. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject doesn't show enough significance for having such a stand alone page for itself. I would consider a merge if there is any such option. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:04, 1 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Above the Line (TV series)

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

Television "series" whose status is unverifiable. As always, the mere existence of an IMDb page is not an automatic wikinotability freebie in the absence of reliable source media coverage about the show -- but this cites none of the latter, and I can't find any anywhere else either. Basically, if a television "series" is so unsourceable that a decade later it's still "unclear when or on what network it aired", then we can't keep an article about it just because it has an IMDb page. And on top of that, apparently only one episode was ever actually made, which means this is far more likely to be a failed pilot that never got picked up by anybody at all than a television series that ever actually aired anywhere. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm going to call it for what it is; someone threw a pilot Global and CTV rejected on the internet to try to sell it...and didn't. Doubtful it made it to a cable channel, either, even as 'beaver hour' content for a network like G4 to throw on one night. Nate • (chatter) 20:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Doesn't meet WP:TVSHOW as a pilot that was apparently filmed but never aired anywhere. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Significance was not even established and I see no hope for such in the future. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:19, 29 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} 12:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminati X

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

Defunct group, appears to fail WP:BAND, no real claim to notability. It may meet criteteria for a speedy under WP:A7 but since it is the fourth AfD, perhaps it merits a discussion. I would advocate salting the article if it is deleted. Ifnord (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that there is no indication of WP:BAND notability. Not seeing any WP:RS on the group and none of their music has appeared on a WP:CHART. Teemu08 (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also agree that it doesn't pass notability guidelines. Zortwort (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here passes any WP:NMUSIC criterion, and the sources aren't reliable ones for the purposes of getting them over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even if this article was noteworthy, Even if it had reliable sources, it is still one of the shortest stubs I've seen. If a subject can only generate an article this long, it probably doesn't warrant an article.Grapefruit17 (talk) 00:10, 4 September 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 Technical textile. I am not sure why this has been relisted so often. It has been clear for some time that there is consensus not to keep this as an article, but that equally there was consensus to redirect it. Anyone who wishes to carry out the suggested merging is, of course, free to do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Performance fabrics

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

The term "Performance fabrics" was probably invented by the Marketing Dept at Gore-tex, as I recall. It actually has no defined meaning, as the main editor is finding out. This concern was highlighted by the reviewer at AfC a couple of years ago, and again by me quite recently.

None of the refs support the article, and I believe the subject unsuitable for a wikipedia article. Roxy, the dog. barcus 11:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete: The gallery of HUGE photos makes the article so, so much worse. Anything worth salvaging can be incorporated into Technical textiles, which has both Clothtech and Sporttech sections. David notMD (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep: The article is vastly (albeit contentiously) improved from what it was when this discussion started. Still overly wordy and repetitious. I cut some of the fluffy sentences. Needs more trimming, but there now is a core worthy of being an article. David notMD (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Technical textiles, or a new section created at that page. It would seem that most of the topic could be better covered under the more specific sections found there (sport or protective?). While I am trying to ignore the (ugh) formatting issues – on both pages even – and base my opinion on the content, I do not see any outcome other than delete, and it may be best to apply WP:TNT here and add any useful content to the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha3031 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking !vote, since to be honest, the other article has the same issues. I'm wondering if there's a better title for th page, but it isn't really something that would improve the page significantly.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:58, 14 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) 16:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Page is a mess now, but the subject matter, isn't as 'bad' as the 'world's-leading-experts on everything' are claiming it to be. While I'm also not totally against a WP:TNT for this one.Ciao.Themessengerofknowledge ^{write to me} 13:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC) 19:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC). sockpuppet. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Hi, I started working on this page around two years ago, because I was unable to find a suitable definition for the term anywhere on Google, and with zero formatting skills about WikiMarkup or anything, I set about the task of creating it on my own, which has been, in hindsight, a terrible experience for me editing and using Wikipedia, in general, all of you are too patronizing and unhelpful that it's extremely difficult for beginners to learn. I've spent like a hundred hours, researching and editing the page, and the last few edits were just a desperate attempt to save the page, as is apparent from the oh-so-clumsy, aforementioned formatting, and I'm well aware of that.My frustration, I hope, is understandable.
Talking about the subject now, I, as an industry professional believe that it's encyclopedic, although I'm aware that needs some strong and reliable backing sources .More on that later though.
Final Note: The page could be renamed to Functional fabrics, or started all over again,I have sources on the page itself that could be helpful.

Also I would have appreciated these inputs from all of you a lot more, if they were given to me on time so that I could've incorporated those into the page, earlier.ughh, whateverRajiv Sharma (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC) sock master, sort of. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The gallery of large photos, which seemed to be the major objection from !voters so far, has been deleted. Performance fabrics is a much better, much more informative, far better cited, much less choppy, much less brand-promotional article than Technical textiles, so I see no reason to redirect to it or merge the articles. I myself objected to Performance fabrics three years ago (which is why it is on my watch list), but it has come along nicely. This current article is well cited and informative. The worst that can be said of it in my opinion is that has been mainly written by a single editor [1], who is a bit of an SPA, but he did not create the article or its title, and there is no indication of brand-promotionalism. Softlavender (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Technical textiles. I fail to see how this article would be encyclopedic, it is full of marketing speak and trivia along "clothing is worn for comfort and protection" (doh). It does not tell you anything worth knowing about the subject matter (for example "Textile Auxiliaries" in Ullmann's, doi:10.1002/14356007.a26_227). --46.189.28.247 (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: This IP has only edited for 13 days and has already gotten 17 warnings for disruptive editng and a block. Softlavender (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - But, nevertheless, their observations in this case are accurate. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, they aren't, and the IP is just trolling, as usual. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes they are, but they've been blocked anyway. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge (after wielding a very large axe) to technical textiles.

Gore-Tex may have dreamt up the term 'performance fabrics', but it isn't unique to them. It is indeed poorly defined, but it is a term of art, which I've known since the 1980s. I remember a UK company called Courtaulds Performance Fabrics Ltd, formerly Fothergill and Harvey Ltd, which may now be the Performance Fabrics division of Courtaulds Aerospace Ltd or have been spun off as Fothergill Group. Narky Blert (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Term of art = Jargon = Nonsense!!! -Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon = useful technical shorthand for those involved in a trade or business ≠ nonsense. Narky Blert (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I worked as a chemist in the viscose industry, I used routinely to measure things like soda, cell, ballfall, and k-value (actually, k₂-value, which used an S.S.54.2 filter pack; k₁, which used an S.G.1 pack, was long obsolete), but only measured gamma-value once or twice. Gamma-value was a rarity, but everyone in the factory, including the process workers, knew what the other terms meant. Nonsense, eh? Narky Blert (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does the use of Jargon in articles help inform our readership. Jargon should be explained, perhaps using reliable sources. Hang on, the term "Performance fabrics" shouldn't be covered in wikipedia using jargon, but reliable sources. Hang on, there aren't any to do that, as demonstrated in this article. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that is exactly why 'performance fabrics', a term which our readers might come across in real life, should redirect to an article which explains what it means.

Sheesh, talk about WP:WIKILAWYERing! Narky Blert (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(I forgot to mention salt figure, which is or was a worldwide standard measurement in the viscose industry across several languages. I always asked more experienced analysts than I to measure it – the technique looked simple enough on paper, but was easy to get wrong if you didn't know what you were doing.) Narky Blert (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last edits(deletes) by Roxy, the dog. barcus made the article incomplete ,Seems unfair and unjustifiable especially when he recommended the deletion of the subject article.Thanks Rajiv Sharma (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I nommed this, there have been 98 edits to the article. I have made 9 of them, you have made 19. Isn't that a little hypocritical? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy, the dog. barcus Please do not be so desperate to delete the things testing procedures were added just 30 minutes before and you deleted.Allow me to add verified sources at-least.why so hurry? ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for the editors who are watching these efficient deleting patterns.They will definitely come and save this page.I am hopeful and recording all discussions and your wrong doings.Expecting your reply on my recent edits .ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RAJIVVASUDEV: Articles can be improved while they're being discussed at AfD; if removing content helps improve the article, then so be it. Instead of asking other editors to wait for you to add verified sources, perhaps it would be better for you to wait until you have all the proper reliable sources ready to go before adding the content. Anytime you add unsourced content to an article, there's always a risk that another editor will remove it; so, the way to stop that from happening is to find the sources first, get them ready and then add the relevant content to the article. Finally, you'll have a better chance of convincing others to keep this article if you focus on relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and keep your comments focused on the article content, instead of trying to get them to focus on what you consider to be "wrong doings" committed by other editors. AfD discussions can sometimes get a little heated, but it's best to try to keep cool and focus on the matter at hand and not try to personalize things as explained in WP:GD#General advice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly (talk) Sir, I sincerely appreciate your advice and from now on I shall try my level best to maintain the things properly.I am not against removing the content but astonished the way things are happening,since I have seen other pages also,with another kind of remarks like Need improvement,need citation ,refs and so on.But here the things are getting deleted more promptly.See the logs.One more thing i am not very much familiar with all editing skills.I did not want to write the way i am doing but i was forced to do so.Please accept my apology .Thanks and regards Rajiv Sharma (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's an ill-defined industry buzzword and while there are fabrics which exist and which could be said to belong to this category, the term as a whole does not clearly define a set of fabrics. As a result we don't get decent RS discussing this topic and the article is a confection of original research and not encyclopedic. Some of the referenced material may be salvaged and moved to more specific articles. Alexbrn (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request continuous and instantaneous deletion of recent edits( Users are adding ) and intentional trimming of the contents and refs(Which were valid for two years) seems unjustifiable and discouraging .This is not the only article with un-encyclopedic name and with less sources, Article deserves a fair chance of improvement. ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion one name change can save this article options from my side

Clothtech
Functional Textiles

Please see there are Bot suggested articles which need more serious attention since they are ignored with a long time. The contents of Performance fabrics are not that bad and they are presently happening and reshaping the distressed textile Industry. Kindly consider.

SuggestBot table

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
376	Spinning (textiles) (talk)	Add sources
1,347	Jute (talk)	Add sources
70	Blouson (talk)	Add sources
232	Western dress codes (talk)	Add sources
40	Ceremonial dress (talk)	Add sources
46	Rekel (talk)	Add sources
69	Textile recycling (talk)	Cleanup
78	Home fuel cell (talk)	Cleanup
81	Layered clothing (talk)	Cleanup
196	Olefin fiber (talk)	Expand
214	Madras (cloth) (talk)	Expand
324	Textile printing (talk)	Expand
72	Digital textile printing (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
264	Bamboo textile (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
28	Riding coat (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,813	Rayon (talk)	Merge
87	Bekishe (talk)	Merge
552	Clothing material (talk)	Merge
198	Tailcoat (talk)	Wikify
77	3D optical data storage (talk)	Wikify
131	Resistive random-access memory (talk)	Wikify
17	Game of Thrones Tapestry (talk)	Orphan
6	International Down and Feather Testing Laboratory (talk)	Orphan
2	Joanna Berzowska (talk)	Orphan
90	Norfolk jacket (talk)	Stub
27	Polo coat (talk)	Stub
23	Vegetable flannel (talk)	Stub
38	Coatee (talk)	Stub
140	Lamé (fabric) (talk)	Stub
95	Coolmax (talk)	Stub

Thanks and regardsRajiv Sharma (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, Rajiv, have you changed your iVote? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is same what it was Keep,The article is more improved now .Appreciate your contributions.Thanks and RegardsRajiv Sharma (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you have just said you want to change the name. That is not Keeping the article. Please amend your vote. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is to Keep only. Article is completely changed when it was tagged ,please change your opinion also .Yes I am open to change the name if the judges and all are still dissatisfied with the revised version.ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: It might help avoid any possible confusion if you struckthrough your previous !vote and moved this up to the same spot. See item 6 under "When participating, please consider the following".-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. David notMD (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Technical textile and clean up the resuling article. I'm agnostic about the title of the merged article, it should of course comply with WP:COMMONNAME. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems like lot of wp:original research, Would also suggest to merge with Technical textile and also clearly describe who calls it and by whom , it rather depicts a loose marketing term and even the pictures or being used from other textile related article showing lack of anything new Shrikanthv (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after doing some research it seems the word " performance fabrics" eventhough a colloquial word does meet wiki:notability and there is enough content available to keep this as an article by itself Shrikanthv (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the ongoing discussion, ongoing edits, mixed !votes and multiple revoked !votes, a relist seems more than warranted
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The title might better as "High-performance fabrics" or "textiles" -- see high-performance plastics, for a similar concept. Anyway, here's source which demonstrates the notability of the topic -- Engineering of High-Performance Textiles. Myself, I'm quite liking the non-iron shirts which I discovered recently. There doesn't seem to be an article about those yet so I'm going to make a start... Andrew D. (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that source does not support this article, as it is about textiles, not fabrics, a vast difference. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Performance textiles are used to make performance fabrics. This is not a vast difference; it's closely related. The source covers this relationship, "Engineering of High-Performance Textiles discusses the fiber-to-fabric engineering of ... before presenting the engineering fabrics and architectures needed for ... Properties covered include moisture absorption, pilling resistant knitwear, fire retardant fabrics, camouflage fabrics, insect repellent fabrics, filtration, and many more. ..." Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Performance textiles are used to make performance fabrics." This is abject nonsense - what is the rest of the source like? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have refrained from removing much of the extant article for non reliable sourcing while this discussion is continuing. I am also curious as to who was the original contributor of this article, as the wikipedia software seems to think it was User:Themessengerofknowledge who created it, having issued a notification to them whenm I nominated this for deletion. I had believed that Rajiv Sharma originally wrote it, according to his user talk page. Do you guys have any explanation? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, fabrics and textiles are one and the same.You can find various resources that could help you with understanding that.One more thing, You should limit the use of the word nonsense, as it's highly condescending and, even downright degradingWP:WIKILAWYERing!. Also, this forum does not serve to satiate your personal "curiosities". As for the page creation mess-up, I am confused too.

ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, did you create the page, or the messenger? That's an easy question for you not to avoid.

Also anybody who thinks that Fabrics and Textiles are the same thing ought to take some sort of textile technology course, as it is nonsense to say that. good grief. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy, the dog. There is no question of avoiding , History is there and software is also there.

@ Fabrics_ Everybody can understand that you do not own that course,For your information there is only one article which defines both i.e. Textiles and for fabrics the message is like Fabric" redirects here. For other uses, see Fabric (disambiguation) and Textile (disambiguation). on Wikipedia.ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As there seems to be some confusion about the words, let's check the OED:

textile n. A woven fabric; any kind of cloth.

fabric n. A manufactured material; now only a ‘textile fabric’, a woven stuff.

So, they have come to mean much the same thing. The source Engineering of High-Performance Textiles is therefore quite valid and, as it clearly covers fabrics specifically, we're good. Andrew D. (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Excluding the nominator and a blocked sock, there has only been one participant since the last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 19:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Technical textiles. While most of the sources in the article are crappy buzzwordy marketing style articles, there are a few papers in there that discuss functional/technical fabric that could be useful in Technical textiles. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I think it is incumbent on me to point out a few things now that the sockpuppetry is over. I was confused at first and thought that he was a student, parroting badly stuff from his textiles lectures, as what he writes appear to be lecture notes in between unconnected, unenglish babble. (WP:CIR applies to competence in language too.

As I write, the ivote is divided as follows - keep 4, merge to TT 4 and Delete 2. I have not changed my mind that the article should be deleted due to a lack of any meaning that can be assigned to the term "Performance fabric." Note that the term is used by Marketing departments rather than technical ones, and we all should know how they work. (They will say anything at all to sell their product, truth, honesty and particularly reality do not get in their way) The article is more or less in a similar state to it was when I nominated it - the stupid huge gallery of pics was added after in a strange attempt to improve the piece. I would be happy to start again without the distraction of the sockpuppet if that would help provide a clearer result. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:58, 1 September 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 Lahore Cantonment. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DHA Graveyard, Lahore

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

Notability tagged article which does not appear to meet GNG. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:02, 13 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) 10:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG as per nom. Chetsford (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. There is lots of coverage of the cemetery, generally in connection with arguments about who is allowed to be buried there, as well as articles mentioning in passing that a person who died will be or was buried there. In general, editors should remember that currently operating cemeteries are likely to be well-documented. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Also, a search for "DHA Graveyard" is morelikely to give results than for "DHA Graveyard, Lahore". Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not impressed with the quality of sources being cited to establish the WP:N. --Saqib (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nor am I. These only establish that it exists and it is a real place, which is different than whether it's notable. Chetsford (talk) 16:48, 19 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, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, this appears to be a small cemetry (around 3.5 hectares, the largest in Lahore, by comparison, Miani Sahib Graveyard is 60 hectares), is reflected by the dearth of significant/indepth sources available, could still be a search term for readers so a couple of lines at Lahore Cantonment may be appropriate. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Lahore Cantonment in the interest of optimal information organization. Move the information with sources. Do not delete the graveyard's article history. gidonb (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lahore Cantonment per WP:NBUILD, since that is the area where this is located.--DBig Xrayᗙ 21:47, 29 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. Seems consensus that suitable sources are in place and that NPOL is satisfied by the position (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tsai Ling-yi

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

Failed to meet notability criterion. It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 18:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See the much longer Chinese-language article at https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%94%A1%E4%BB%A4%E6%80%A1 That article has 16 references, although some may not be from reliable sources. In addition, search for the name in CHinese characters here: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added many references. As a former Second Lady of Taiwan, Tsai Ling-yi has received significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, and therefore meets the general notability guideline. For more information, see Chinese article zh:蔡令怡 on Chinese Wikipedia. --Neo-Jay (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG per the references added by Neo-Jay to the article + those available on the Chinese Wiki. Bennv3771 (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A second lady is a notable topic already by itself. United States can have its second lady article. Why can't Taiwan? There is third party resources already, there is photo, there is the detailed DOB etc. Yes I know it may not be as complete as the United States' one. But if we keep deleting the less notable topics, those less notable will even be less noticeable in the foreseeable future, while the indisputably notable will just even keep growing, overshadowing the smaller or lesser well-known countries. Chongkian (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel the current version is rather short but has improved a lot. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 08:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Length or lack thereof is not a good rationale for deletion. Deletion is usually the last resort for articles. In any case, a well-executed WP:BEFORE would have led to WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:NPOL, as well as the reliable sources added by Neo-Jay. Vycl1994 (talk) 14:17, 4 September 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 WWNLive. I'll semi-protect it as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Club WWN

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

Does not appear to be notable. Should be a redirect to WWNLive. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, restore redirect as a locked rd By behavior and dealing with them a few months back, this was the creation of an IP sock of New South Wales-based Martimc123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (they seemed to have found a new dynamic IP and provider, so a block would be fingers in a cheesecloth and null good edits from several other IP users). Thus this should be a G5 (I spent a few weeks trying to deal with their messing with wrestling TV templates before giving up), but they'll persist on trying to recreate this as its own article no matter what. Nate • (chatter) 19:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, @Primefac:, who G3'ed this in the past to see if that should indeed be the result. Nate • (chatter) 20:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and SALT - No stand alone notability. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 28 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Balls (2012 film)

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

Film lacks reviews from RS or other signs of notability per GNG and NFILM. Had been proposed for merger with another film by one of the actresses involved but that seems like a poor target and I do not see a better target for a redirect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of the multiple reviews (or indeed any other reliable coverage) needed to pass NFILM. In fact, it doesn't even show up on the more trustworthy existence sites like ImdB, If someone were creating something on the '06 version it could be merged there but even a redirect to, say, the actress would be odd and ill-advised. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything either other than some places listing it for sale or mirrors of Wikipedia. It exists and can be purchased, but that's the extent of what's out there. I can't find any reviews or coverage in places Wikipedia would consider reliable. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:43, 28 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 List of Justice Society of America enemies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Karne

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

Failure of WP:GNG, no reliable secondary sources discuss the character. Killer Moff (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 17:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 17:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Justice Society of America enemies. After links from templates are discounted, there are 9 articles that link to this character from the prose. This list includes a minimum of information, although it's lacking creator credit. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Argento. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:28, 1 September 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} 03:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the war in Donbass (July 2018–present)

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

This article is a violation of WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. This article un-critically regurgitates the daily press releases of the pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian forces, and does not provide any encyclopedic value. An RFC has not found any way to improve the article, and I doubt there is any way to have a day-by-day timeline that would be encyclopedic in nature. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is essentially a collection of daily press briefings by the Ukranian and LNR/DNR sides (the reliability of either side being rather poor). The conflict is not covered by SECONDARY WP:RS at anything close to the the level of detail present in the article. This perhaps belongs in WikiSource or something similar - we are essentially hosting a collation of WP:PRIMARY accounts (the daily press releases). There are also NPOV issues in the presentation. In terms of policy rationale for deletion - this is a WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSTAT fail.Icewhiz (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is active warfare in Donbass, as a matter of fact. This is a well sourced WP:LIST. The criteria for inclusion are obvious. Many sources are secondary and qualify as RS. Some others (such as that one) are indeed primary and hardly reliable. They should be probably removed. I agree: these events should be summarized more briefly, but this is a matter of fixing content. Not a reason for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The RfC discussion is far from over, so hardly any "way to improve the article" could have been found (or not) yet. The timeline, as the proposer acknowledges, is based almost exclusively upon daily military reports from both sides involved in the conflict, therefore this is not a case of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, since the narrative mirrors sources which provide concise information (weaponry, locations, number of ceasefire violations and casualties). Wikipedia policy is aimed to "statistics that lack context or explanation", as you can see at WP:DISCRIMINATE. Sources don`t need to be "independent"; see WP:BIASED, where it reads "...reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Counterbalance is the best way to achieve neutrality in some cases, it has been already discussed at the RfC.---Darius (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No comments to add.LongstreetJames (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Darius. Impru20^talk 21:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sourcing is adequate.XavierGreen (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – was my intention in the beginning (in 2014, or so (started in etwi, copying from here)), though, did not know at this time nothing about today (19:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)), and, e.g., reading/comparing with Current events, shall we delete this and other similar and stick to, say, Big Bang, and start dealing with this unknown ‘thing’?
Meanwhile, in the middle of Europe, people are killed, fates of millions are “bangled”, and, people are reading this series of chronology, no matter on which side of the "line" they are (killed, wounded, fighting, suffering, living), thus the multi-language sources.—Pietadè (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 2 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Sharda

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

No evidence of any notability. Almost all refs are social media, blogs, vlogs or sales sites. No evidence of in depth coverage by reliable and independent sources. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; in addition to the sourcing issues the tone is blatantly promotional, bordering on G11 speedy deletion territory. Huon (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I concur with the nom and Huon. This is blatantly promotional to the point of needing nearly a complete rewrite, and I also do not believe this meets NMUSIC or GNG. Waggie (talk) 19:36, 2 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Giorgia of Marin and Lesina

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

Does not appear to meet notability criteria. Google search for "Princess Giorgia of Marin and Lesina" results in 41 pages (Instagram, Pinterest, blogs), and search for "Georgia Marin" results in 75 pages of similar type.

Note that articles about this individual (and members of her family) have been deleted before and protected from recreation (see Giorgia Marin). ... discospinster _talk 16:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've blocked the page creator as a sock puppet (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Royalist Lady/Archive). ... discospinster _talk 16:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 16:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable aristocrat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G5: created by a sock puppet in violation of a block. DrKay (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Compare also Marin Family and Umberto, Earl Marin, both protected against re-creation. Narky Blert (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also, there is a possibility that the creator of the article(s) in question may have a connection to the subjects of the article. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Namenamenamenamename (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Terry

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

Title does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 16:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found evidence of some coverage. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Argento. BOZ (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add the sources Argento found to the article. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NCOMIC from the sources found. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:08, 3 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smalltown Poets

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

Non-notable band and while having released an album on a notable label, there's no indication it went anywhere or charted, no coverage I can find and no significant contributions to notable works. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: their first and third albums were nominated for Grammy Awards in the Best Rock Gospel Album category [2]. Richard3120 (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shockingly did not come up in my searches but i'm not sure how much a nomination on it's own really means for an article, particularly in the absence of...anything else? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does mean they pass criterion 8 of WP:BAND, although like you, I would like to see something more to be able to add to the prose. Christian rock isn't my area and I wouldn't really know where to look for more reliable sources - I'm hoping other editors with more expertise in this area can help. Richard3120 (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one. Much of their press was early in their career in the 1990s, and there's little of that available online. For example, I can't find good data on which Dove Awards they were nominated for back then. Here's a recent interview: [3]. - Foetusized (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to lean toward the deletionist side obviously so i'm not one to think of keeping stuff just on the basis of being nominated for many/any thing(s) when there is no other coverage. I did check newspapers (I have a newspapers.com subscription) and found nothing worthwhile there either. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I honestly doubt the this would've been AfD'd if the nom knew this was a two-time Grammy-nominated band. Easily passes WP:MUSICBIO and specifically Criterias 2 "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" (one of their songs charted 29 on Billboard's Hot Christian Songs [4]- the nom's claim this band didn't chart was incorrect), 5 "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" which even the nom admits and 8 "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." Easily found in-depth coverage spanning years.[5][6][7][8]--Oakshade (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple Grammy nominations, 10 charting singles, and I've expanded the article using some of the sources found by Oakshade. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:31, 2 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siete Viejo (gang)

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

When I came to this page from a request for page protection, it had been nominated for speedy as "an article about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to." That is not exactly an accurate description of the article. However, as I investigated it I began to believe this is a hoax. The article was created in 2011. this version, soon after creation, lists two sources. The one from NarcoSphere is a dead link. The one from Dallas Morning News is still accessible, but does not mention a gang by the name of Siete Viejo. With this edit in 2012 MauricioMoniko22 removed the reference list and expanded the article, citing no sources. This is the only article MauricioMoniko22 has ever edited. Since then there's been a substantial amount of IP editing, much of which appears to be vandalism. My original inclination was to revert back to the version before MauricioMoniko22's 2012 edit, as sources were listed, but since the sources don't actually appear to verify the content I did some searching and outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors, I can find no indication this gang exists. I've left the article courtesy blanked, and I'll semi-protect it to prevent vandalism over the course of the AFD. I want other editors to help confirm my suspicions that this is a hoax. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as either an unsourced negative blp(G10), assuming they are real people, or as a hoax/vandalism(G3), assuming they are not, or as no assertion of significance(A7) assuming they are real and that was not a wholly unsourced negative blp. Not sure why it did not go as G10, but it's been here a while, so a few more days won't matter-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming none of the above are true, then delete as just not notable.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim I did not delete it as G10 because it was not wholly unsourced - back in 2011 and 2012 there were 2 sources cited. Also, it's not strictly a BLP, although it doesn't have to be to bring up BLP concerns. Now, when I tried to verify information in the article using the sources, it failed verification; but G10 was still inappropriate IMO. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. How can we make a decision if the article is blanked. That is an oxymoron.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ There's a button up top called "view history" which will let you see the article, including past versions. My deletion rational also includes links to relevant past versions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Shouldn't have been blanked (nowhere close to meeting WP:CBLANK). I don't know if it is a hoax. However, there are no sources (well - the blanked version has two links - that don't mention the name of this supposed organization, the article at creation cited sources don't seem to mention this supposed organization either) - so it fails WP:V. In my BEFORE for more sources - I was not really able to find any reliable non-wiki clone with info on this gang on-line (It does seem that Siete Viejo is a neighborhood, perhaps a ghetto of sorts, in Laredo, Texas). We typically require national level coverage for WP:NCRIME - so even if this exists, it doesn't come close to the required level of coverage for notability.Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ: You can look at the past versions in the page history-- they are all still there-- and should in case there is a salvageable version that has been missed. I will unblank the thing though as that was blanked automatically by Twinkle.. "Keep for now" is an oxymoron. Either the page meets inclusion criteria or it does not, and determining that is not affected by any one revision.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete My searches on "Siete Viejo" + gang not finding sources. I cannot find any indication that it is a notable gang.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:12, 4 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTS GA Luxembourg

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

Four Maintenance tags explaining the advertisement and close connection. This article is not fluent and is a blatant advertisement. No notability established. AmericanAir88 (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A drive-by article created by one WP:COI account and then extended by two other WP:SPA accounts. Other editors removed some of the worst of the promotional content, but the article remains far substandard. It briefly explains what is project management, what is a dissertation, and assures that the student is provided with Office365 access, etc., but does nothing to demonstrate the notability of this particular course in this particular institution, which has so far obtained only a trivial number of students. (Elsewhere, we do have an article on the Brevet de technicien supérieur as a qualification.) Searches are finding nothing to indicate WP:GNG notability. AllyD (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not even an attempt to establish notability and violates WP:NOTADVERTISING. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:06, 28 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rising Tour

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

Per WP:NTOUR, an article on a tour requires evidence of "notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." I can find no reliable sources to demonstrate any notability for this tour beyond the fact that it took place. Set list and schedule are largely fancruft. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:49, 28 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K S Bava

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

Non-notable film director with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:DIRECTOR. He has directed 4 films of which only one is notable, and the rest of them are miles away from being anywhere close to notability per WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. (Since no one wants to touch this I am hopping in). The movie director has only 1 movie with its own article. (that movie also has a questionable notability). His Bio has a Lack of WP:SIGCOV hence opting to delete. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:21, 29 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kerekai Krishna Bhat

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

Couldn't find any mention, trivia found on not-so reliable sources. Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:48, 28 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} 03:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

European Law Students' Association

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

No indication of notability, and I cannot find WP:RS coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies GNG. There are many reliable sources in GBooks and GScholar. James500 (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: appears to be a significant student body. Some coverage here: From Elections to Democracy: Building Accountable Government .... The article is rather promotional, so if it closes as "Keep", I'd volunteer to remove the 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Guys, I agree the article is pretty bad but ELSA is a real thing. Actually it is a pretty big thing just have a look for instance here on their website: ^[1]. For instance, as a former law student from The Netherlands and former ELSA-member I can confirm that in all or nearly all law faculties in the Netherlands there is a local ELSA branch, and that most European countries have a similar situation. This can be verified easily for instance through the websites of ELSA the Netherlands ^[2] and ELSA Germany ^[3]. To be honest, it is not very difficult to find out the reality and relevance of ELSA. It also sends delegations to all kinds of United Nations bodies ^[4]. Hope this helps. Vunzmstr (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 03:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capes

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

Article on a commercial toy or game product has zero (0) sources. A search on JSTOR, newspapers.com, and Google News fails to find any reference to "Capes" within the context of a toy, game, or games. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of role-playing games by name. BOZ (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept, this should be moved to Capes (role-playing game) and the dab page CAPES should move to this name. I don't see enough coverage but haven't look in enough depth to confidently !vote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and for the same reason move the edit history if the page is redirected. BOZ (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no independent third party reliable sources in the article. The publisher is red-linked so merging is not an option. There is no indication this is a notable game, therefore it fails the notibility inclusion criterion stated on List of role-playing games by name. Fails WP:GNG. Jbh ^Talk 16:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've found this interview with the creator and a trivial mention in a book The Role-Playing Society: Essays on the Cultural Influence of RPGs. Notability guidelines are not met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very minor product. Completely fails GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 19:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated technology processes

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

Unreferenced essay Rathfelder (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I get six GBook hits, and five of those accidental juxtapositions. Regular Ghits show that this is, at best, buzzphrase generator output and doesn't actually mean anything specific. Mangoe (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content-free buzzword spillage. XOR'easter (talk) 19:12, 28 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SOAT (template engine)

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

Unremarkable software package by a non-notable creator and with no independent sources in Google or the article. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No claim of notability or coverage in secondary sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:01, 30 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Provost

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

Subject is a actor. Fails WP:ACTOR. No significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Subject's role in "Insatiable" seems to qualify but not his roles in Realityhigh and Chance do not merit as significant roles. WP:TOOSOON. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Provost currently fails WP:ENT. To meet the notability guidelines there, an actor must have "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." While his role in Insatiable seems to qualify (as his character is mentioned in most of the episode summaries), his work in the other productions does not. The role in Realityhigh does not seem to be a starring role, as none of the sources I've checked mention it. (Our article is rather skimpy.) His role in Chance does not merit mention in the article, despite listing 10 main roles and 6 recurring roles. His role in The Case for Christ doesn't even merit mention on the film's official website. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and the WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Strong consensus that there is sufficient reliable sourcing (though specific sources may be so-so as regards reliability) and that the individual is notable. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blaire White

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

Not a lot of RS coverage of this person. I tried to look for some more RS coverage to beef up the article but the RS are scarce and the few RS that cover this person do so briefly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't in-depth? wumbolo ^^^ 12:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is. Thing is that I consider Newsweek a borderline RS, and if Newsweek is a RS (I do believe the RS noticeboard still considers it as a RS), it's still one of few to actually cover White at depth. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely consider Newsweek and e.g. the New York Daily News reliable despite operating poorly in the recent times, simply because they de facto continue to accurately report the news. Reliability should be judged on the number of scandals, not on the number of fact-checkers they employ. wumbolo ^^^ 12:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "few" in-depth reliable sources discussing the subject are enough to pass GNG. wumbolo ^^^ 12:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The existing sources are sufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I was honestly quite surprised to find this nominated for deletion. Subject is definitely notable. Absolutely passes GNG.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 01:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This will make her pass the WP:GNG-guideline too. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG. Coverage is enough to class as notable. TheMasterGuru (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let me make this clear, I believe Blaire White only has significant coverage because she appeals to the lowest common denominator, so of course conservative and anti-alt-right sites jump to cover her. But, with that out of the way, I think there's definitely enough coverage to classify as notable. Ottoshade (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:22, 31 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. Very strong consensus that notability and sourcing has been satisfied, including removal of delete !votes (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Shurafa

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

Notability NANExcella (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not close to passing GNG or PROF.Icewhiz (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Striking due to sources found below, however I would question whether the author is notable as opposed to the shortlisted book (which has been reviewed by several outlets, easily meeting NBOOK) being notable.Icewhiz (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ it is WP:TOOSOON for this novelist. News searches in Latin alphabet turn up a number of articles mentioning him as having been shortlisted for an Arabic literature prixe him for a prize, but no WP:SIGCOV in English language media. It appears that his novels are published only in Arabic, it is very unusual for a novelist not published in a European language to have a page on the English WP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing in our notability or sourcing requirements that sources be in English or in European languages. There's a tendency for that to happen anyway because those are the languages most of our editors know best, but that's a bug, not a feature; see Wikipedia:Systemic bias. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to suggest that there was, I was only specifying the breadth of my searches. I find only mentions, and not many of those.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think shortlisting for the International Prize for Arabic Fiction (an honor that comes with a $10K prize) is enough for WP:AUTHOR 4(c) and that his other published books, although seemingly not enough for notability themselves, save this from BIO1E. Note in searching that many sources spell his name "Walid Al-Shurafa". —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein's rationale. --1l2l3k (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all certain about that rationale. It's a lot of money, and they've been giving the prize for over a decade. Almost all of the authors are bluelinked, and almost all of the author pages are mere stubs, with a smidgen of PRIMARY sourcing. Do Arabic novelists lack fans? Is the committee deliberately choosing writers that no one reads? I really don't understand all of those pages just sitting there with an unsourced sentence or two.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, considering the plentiful coverage I just linked below, most of these authors are well-known and widely-read by Arabic-speakers but rarely discussed in Latin-alphabet sources. FourViolas (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His name in Arabic is وليد الشرفا. In addition to the IPAF nomination, for a book that was widely (and favorably) reviewed in Arabic-language RS [9] [10][11] [12] [13][14][15] and earned him several interviews [16] [17], his work is discussed at length in this reliable source, a book of Arabic-language literary studies written by Ali Hassan Kharaja, a Ph. D. in Arabic Literature. I believe this constitutes significant critical attention per AUTHOR 4(c).

I also found a few reviews of his academic books [18] [19], and a news snippet [20]. FourViolas (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He has also been cited as an expert on Palestinian media by Vice and Ynetnews, although I'm not sure if this rises to the standard of WP:NACADEMIC #7. FourViolas (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep trusting Arabic-reading editors on book reviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. James500 (talk) 04:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:20, 1 September 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. Sounds like this needs much cleanup, but clear consensus to keep as a valid topic. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hospital information system

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

Essay. Full of unreferenced and untrue assertions. There is a slightly better article,Patient administration system on the same topic. They should be merged. Rathfelder (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you think Patient administration system and Hospital information system should be merged, then why didn't you nominate the two articles for a merger instead? 344917661X (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, numerous books, university courses on HISs, i won't bother listing examples like i usually do, instead heres Worlcat, and heres a gsearch for others to confirm. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting that the topic is not notable, but the articleis almost devoid of useful content. I think that Patient administration system is probably on the same topic, but the article is so poor I am not sure about that. I think Hospital information system] is a British name for much the same thing.Rathfelder (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article needs to be improved. Hospital Information System is an important topic in Medical Informatics. There is a better article in German, but it contains German specifics. Maybe as a first step it should be reduced to a somewhat definition.Udo Altmann (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Isuspect that these systems are different in different countries - and probably change over time. A good article needs to reflect this. Maybe someone could help by pulling in content from the German article. And if we are going to merge the articles we need to decide what the improved article should be called. Rathfelder (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Rathfelder (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject is notable, with significant coverage in reliable sources, including multiple books on the subject. Nom appears to agree on notability, now. This article may need to be stubbed and reworked, or merged, but that is outside the scope of afd discussion, and should be addressed on article talk page.Dialectric (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability is not the only reason for deleting an article.Rathfelder (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 10:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is real and notable. Do a search for "hospital information system" on Google Scholar, get lots of results. The current article is poor, but the solution is not to delete it, the solution is to add some more better quality references (try Google Scholar and Google Books for starters). Also, with the suggestion of merging with a patient administration system–be aware that a HIS and a PAS are not the same thing, a PAS is just one component/module/part of a HIS. (A PAS stores patient contact details and bookings, but not other medical data such as lab results, doctor's notes, medical imaging, billing and insurance claims, staff rostering, etc – HIS implementations will include some or all of those other aspects in addition to just PAS functionality.) SJK (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 40k Google Scholar results for "Hospital information system", including [21] [22] [23]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is suggestion that the topic is not notable. The problem is that the article is not encyclopaedic. Rathfelder (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made a quick pass to remove material I believe to be un-sourceable. The sourcing is still extremely bad. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:DINC. If the subject is notable, then poor sourcing is no reason to delete or merge the article. SJK (talk) 11:20, 1 September 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016 The End

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

A movie that fails notability guidelines for films, and general notability guidelines. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has a full independent review in The Times of India here, will look for more later, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have found some more reviews: Dekh News, Telangana Today which is a newspaper, see Telangana Today, and livehindustan.com, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have huge doubts about reliability about these sources (except telangana today). The reviews seems to be paid reviews. In any case, they are reviews by websites that would cover most of the films released recently. None of the critics who gave review are "nationally known critics", they arent even known as critics. That was the first criteria. The film fails rest of the criteria as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have plenty of sources. - Scarpy (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there are sources, but they are not WP:RS. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The "plenty of sources" are two on the article. Three but IMDb was used as a reference (moved to "External links"). "Makers of 2016 The End release trailer of the comedy film" (International Business Times) was from Oct 6, 2016 and is dubious. This is a BLP related article so the usual; "The state of references on the article does not matter as long as there are sources out there" would be at odds with BLP policies and guidelines with only "Critic Review of 2016 The End" (Times Of India). I would think someone would dig out a HEY! instead of just posting them on the discussion considering the current poor BLP sourcing. If Telanganatoday.com, livehindustan.com (needs translating), and Dekh News (I could not bring up) are reliable sources (I am not familiar with any but the Times) then there are ample sources. The movie was a flop, with one review giving 2 1/2 stars and the rest either a bad review or 1 star out of five. The movie was a year over the production timeline so 2016 The End (2017) would seem more appropriate. If kept it would be interesting (if possible) to include the reasoning for the delayed production time in the article, so it doesn't seem like a missed prophesy (or missed doomsday) movie, but that is a content issue. Otr500 (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a film article rather than a BLP it passes the first criteria of WP:NFILM as a widely released film having full independent reviews by nationally known critics (meaning published in national newspapers) such as The Times of India and Telangana Today even if the other reviews are disregarded which is not established that they are definitely unreliable, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Telangana Today is not a national newspaper. Its a state-wide newspaper. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 10:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I don't disagree that it passes WP:NFILM. I "assume" there are likely even more sources "out there" and the reason I haven't argued delete. I would point out that with 10 names listed like 22 times on the article (somewhat overkill on a "Stub-class" with triple repeated blue links) someone else will likely read this, and even if it survives this AFD, it may likely be resubmitted. BLP articles, or those related that mentions a living person, according to policies and guidelines, "must" be held to a higher standard. We generally don't just try to take one "rule" and forget the others. and it really doesn't matter if the material is "negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". Anyone that has the right resources might want to consider that and possibly provide additional sourcing. At any rate: Have a nice day, Otr500 (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I could find were mostly tabloid type, or non-reliable at best (exluding times of India). Thats why i had to take it to AfD. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My opinion will not count "if" this is just a headcount. The rationale for a !vote is: One reference and a trailer release does not provide evidence of clear notability. We cannot override other policies and guidelines (especially BLP related) with "as a film article rather than a BLP" to squeeze in notability by exception. I could not find anything else substantial on the movie. Otr500 (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are no BLP concerns with this film article and there are 2 reliable sources independent reviews and state-level press counts for WP:GNG especially the size of Indian states, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:31, 4 September 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. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HSV De Zuidvogels

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

Amateur football club. Does not meet WP:GNG/WP:NCLUB/WP:NCORP. Only source in the article is a listing of all teams in the competition. » Shadowowl | talk 09:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. » Shadowowl | talk 09:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. » Shadowowl | talk 09:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. » Shadowowl | talk 09:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As noted in a previous AfD, amateur status has no bearing on football notability. Appears to meet WP:GNG: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] (I don't read Dutch, but there are more sources available than just the ones posted here) SportingFlyer talk 11:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1,2 and 6 are regional, source 3 and 4 are about clubs losing from this team. Source 5 might be usable. » Shadowowl | talk 17:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with regional sources. SportingFlyer talk 02:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be notable. Giant Snowman 12:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Club plays in the fourth tier of Dutch football and we have articles on all other clubs at this level. Number 5 7 14:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Regional press sources are awesome for notability plus there are plenty of other sources just as well! In this particular case I happen to have written the article on the newspaper a while ago, because of its relative importance during most of the years it covered HSV De Zuidvogels. The Zuidvogels entry clearly completes and enriches Wikipedia and should stay because of WP:GNG and WP:NEXIST. I would be able to expand but am very busy at present. Otherwise after the AfD. gidonb (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded and referenced anyway. More importantly, I shorted the name per WP:COMMONNAME to Zuidvogels which increased the number of sources by a lot (see below) from a wide variety of media. To the nomimator I recommend doing much better research WP:BEFORE AfDing. Please check Delpher before nominating Dutch subjects and check the name before nominating any article! gidonb (talk) 02:38, 30 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters with plant abilities

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

Unreferenced list with original research. An article on this topic was previously deleted in 2010. The previous nomination for this article was withdrawn solely because a category exists for this group, but that has nothing to do with the encyclopedicity of this article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - it's true this is missing references, but this is a list and appears to be a meaningful distinction of the characters referenced. - Scarpy (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Whatever the outcome of this discussion, it is meaningfully tied to the category, so whatever outcome happens here should be mirrored there. Also: this seems like an unusual definition, though there has been non-WP coverage of it (though not entirely reliable?), including the blog of an interior landscaping company, the the blog of a specialty toy company, and this list from Comic Book Resources. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 15:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least Rename to List of fictional characters with chlorokinetic abilities. Original research. » Shadowowl | talk 09:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have yet to see a single reference. wumbolo ^^^ 10:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am Groot. I am Groot. I am Groot. Andrew D. (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE applies here. Just pointing at 3 policies does not make an argument. This wrong-named list should be deleted. We already know that you want everything to be kept. » Shadowowl | talk 10:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically a transcription of a clickbaity top-10 style list. There are not sufficient sources here to satisfy WP:LISTN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- chronically undersourced and crufty list in the same style as other previously deleted "List of fictional characters with XYZ powers" and the like. Reyk _YO! 14:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete –What's the point of this? Seems to be WP:OR. Doesn't pass WP:GNG and it doesn't appear to pass WP:V either. Redditaddict6 9 09:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against future recreation if reliable sources become available. bd2412 T 19:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qadamkhel

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

I hate to AFD this because, if it is indeed an actual ethno-tribal group in Afghanistan, it should be kept. However, it has no sources and when I checked Google Books, JSTOR, and Google News, I could find nothing that actually proves this is a real thing. There appears to be a geographic location called "Qadam Khel" (though even this isn't entirely clear) and I found one mention of a "Qadam Khel Council" but neither of those demonstrate that Qadamkhel is an Afghan tribe. Due to the complete absence of any discoverable sources, I believe this should be deleted (without prejudice for future recreation) to avoid the possibility of a WP:HOAX. The article was created four years ago by Qadamkhel as his/her only contribution so it may be that "Qadamkhel" as an ethno-tribal group is simply the individual aspiration of one person who lives in the Qadam Khel region for its residents. Chetsford (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure about it being a tribe, but there seems to be a village called Qadamkhel in Andar District, Afghanistan (some mentions:[30][31][32][33]). Some sources also spell it as "Qadem Khel" ([34]). There is also a mention of a "tribal elder from Qadamkhel" here. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Can't find any sources anywhere to even verify this as a tribe. No prejudice against recreation as a geographic article if the village meets WP:GEOLAND. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Cabayi (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And No Quarter

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

Lacks notability. None of the references refer to the book, just to its historical background. Cabayi (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Walsh was Ireland's most popular author in the 1930s and 1940s and considered notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page (which I've also updated). At present, there are no Wikipedia articles on any of his books, which is similar to saying Shakespeare was a great author but we won't bother providing any idea why that is so;

I selected 'And No Quarter' as an example because the historical setting is fairly unique (Montrose's campaigns of 1644-1645) and the book provides a good overview of Walsh's themes as an author as well as insights into why he fell out of fashion.

I think the same can be said of other articles on Wikipedia eg Compton Mackenzie, barely mentioned today, but the novel of 'Whiskey Galore' is deemed worthy of an article, plus another for the film.

Robinvp11 (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been advised separately referring to another article is unjustified and that the criteria are applied consistently. I'm happy to accept that but I would appreciate clarification in the interests of saving us all time in future.

I've been advised this article does not pass the Notability test because it (a) provides references only for the historical events that it relates to and that (b) saying it provides a good overview of Walsh's themes as an author as well as insights into why he fell out of fashion is original research and thus disqualifies it. But that these are not true of the article on Mackenzie's 'Whiskey Galore.'

This is a genuine question; I've accepted that 'And No Quarter' will be deleted but bearing in mind the notability criteria, can someone explain to me the differences between this article and that on Whiskey Galore? Because I'm struggling and I want to make sure I understand for future reference.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of WP:NBOOK because the author, Maurice Walsh is of exceptional historical importance, such that you would expect his books to be the subject of academic study. Walsh has an article in Everyman's Dictionary of Literary Biography, English and American (D C Browning (compiled after J W Cousin), "Walsh, Maurice", Everyman's Dictionary of Literary Biography, English and American, Everyman's Reference Library, Revised Edition, J M Dent & Sons Ltd, 1960, pages 713 and 714). This is an exceptionally highly selective biographical dictionary that only includes the most exceptionally important authors. Further, this book is listed there as one of his important ones. James500 (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC) A straightforward search [35] [36] [37] would have quickly confirmed that this satisfies GNG and criteria 1 of NBOOK with multiple book reviews: eg Ireland To-Day [38], New York Times Saturday Review of Books and Art [39] [40], Dublin Magazine [41], The Times Literary Supplement, The Scotsman, Book Society News, Nottingham Guardian, Aberdeen Press and Journal (quoted in other periodicals). James500 (talk) 04:21, 29 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. Nomination withdrawn, with thanks to Bakazaka for providing sources. (non-admin closure) Cabayi (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bury Him Among Kings

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

No evidence of, or claim of, notability. Nothing found in a google search other than retail links. Cabayi (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NBOOK#1. Added references and quotes from reviews in The New York Times, Publishers Weekly, and Kirkus Reviews, all admittedly not easy to find with a Google search. Bakazaka (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bakazaka. Satisfies NBOOK with multiple book reviews. James500 (talk) 03:04, 29 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Social Justice Research, Teaching, & Service

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

Fail WP:GNG, promo. Institute belonging to the (Jesuit) Georgetown University. Article largely based on its own website. The Banner talk 15:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find this has enough independent coverage and an extensive enough program to be a keep. This is in keeping with WP:ABOUTSELF policy on Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves, where we read:

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and Facebook."

Jzsj (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self published sources may be acceptable for some uses, but are not for establishing notability. See WP:SPIP. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I ran together two issues here. The first sentence on independent sources is true for this article, as you rightly require. The rest was meant to pertain to the large amount in the article that is credibly referenced to the school's website, along with other sources. Jzsj (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks independent sources to establish notability.96.127.243.251 (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem to be meeting WP:NPOV and may not meet WP:GNG/WP:NORG. Could be promotional, definitely not WP:G11-worthy, however. No notable, independent Ghits. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless sources can be established demonstrating notability. - Scarpy (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Mitcham, Carl (2010). The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 352–353. ISBN 978-0-19-923691-6. Retrieved 2018-08-26.
  The book notes:
  Center for Social Justice Research, Teaching, and Service
  
  Georgetown University in Washington, DC has a founding mission for education in the service of justice and the common good. The Center for Social Justice Research was created as a concrete manifestation of that university-wide commitment. It was initiated in 2001 to promote and integrate community-based research, teaching, and service by collaborating with diverse partners and communities in the District of Columbia. The center involves students in several large community service programs from local schools and helps faculty to develop both interdisciplinary and disciplinary courses across centers and departments in the university to incorporate community-based work and service to justice.
  The center advances this work through faculty workshops, course development grants, and continued support of conferences that enable faculty to learn the pedagogy of service learning, design courses to incorporate it, and link theory to practice. The center trains col- lege students to mentor and tutor in schools throughout the city, supports a large service learning credit program, provides job development training, and serves as a base for urban research combined with service learning. The center also supports the program on justice and peace, an interdisciplinary unit offering an undergraduate minor in the emerging area of peace studies with special emphasis on developing practical solutions to problems of social inequality and injustice. The office of research in the center supports the collaboration of teachers, students, and community members and validates multiple sources of knowledge and multiple methods of discovery and dissemination of the knowledge produced.
2. Jacoby, Barbara (2003). Building Partnerships for Service Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. p. 120. ISBN 0-7879-5890-5. Retrieved 2018-08-26.
  The book notes:
  Another critical function of centers of expertise and facilitation is to involve the institution and the community in developing a vision and strategy for institutionalizing service-learning and community engagement. They build sustaining resources, follow the progress of changing campus attitudes and culture, conduct research about salient issues, and promote service-learning externally to local officials, alumni, community associations, and others. Georgetown University and the University of Minnesota represent these kinds of centers.
  Building on a long tradition of service and social justice, Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., created in 2001 a new entity, the Center for Social Justice Research, Teaching and Service. Following a strategic planning process based on listening sessions with faculty, students, staff, and community representatives, the Center fashioned its mission statement: “In order to advance justice and the common good, the Center integrates and promotes community-based research, teaching and service by collaborating with diverse partners and communities” (Center for Social Justice Research, Teaching and Service Mission Statement, October 2001). That mission will guide this center of expertise and facilitation as it strives to consolidate and develop work in its three key areas: service, curriculum, and research. The Center’s mission reflects the larger mission of the university and thus exemplifies the institutional mission benchmark.
  First, under the leadership of the director of volunteer and public service, the Center will incorporate and build on the vibrant student work of direct service and the learning it fosters in areas ranging from tutoring and mentoring to arts education to job training. Second, under the leadership of the director of curriculum and pedagogy, the Center will promote and help develop curricular offerings that incorporate community-based work and service directed toward social justice. Third, in the newest arena, under the leadership of the director of research, the Center will consolidate and advance the exciting collaborative, communitybased research projects already under way in several of the underresourced neighborhoods of Washington, D.C. These projects address the reduction of violence and crime among adolescents, the enhancement of planning and community organization, and the development of new neighborhood-based economic opportunities. Finally, it is expected that the synergy of the collaboration of the three branches of the Center will lead to service deepened by analysis, teaching grounded in experience, and research stimulated by creative service and dynamic pedagogy. While many campuses focus on student participation in direct service and faculty development for service-learning, Georgetown goes a step further by incorporating research as one of three functions in its Center. It thereby embodies the benchmark on assessment and generation of knowledge related to engagement.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Center for Social Justice Research, Teaching, & Service to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Georgetown_University#Academics. Not enough coverage of the group beyond the two sources identified by Cunard. Too much of the coverage is primary sourcing. Fails WP:GNG. The center was founded in 2001 - you'd think there'd be more sourcing by now. There's just enough from here [[42]] to warrant a couple of lines in the main GU article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the University article but there is enough reliable sources coverage for its own section with at least a couple of paragraphs, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete. Merging to the university page 4-paragraph section on Academics is certainly WP:UNDUE. Absolutely no press coverage of this center in my news archive search. So all we have is PRIMARY and 2 hits on books that offer directory-type listings of this center's own description of its many virtues. This is not notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:25, 5 September 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. Ultra Instinct Greninja, the creator of this article, has been blocked for covert advertising and likely sockpuppetry. No objection to a redirect. MER-C 15:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mean In

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

no apparent notability. mentions in various places only. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I guess we have references for his position in government of Cambodia. Plus, the investment of 500 startups into Khmerload seems quite notable. Ultra Instinct Greninja (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources of the article make him notable - they all talk about cryptocurrency. SportingFlyer talk 00:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we need some to consult a local Cambodian Wikipedian here. May be he could help us reaching the local media coverage. I agree with the cryptocurrency part but I guess for his position in government as director of NCCT makes him notable. Ultra Instinct Greninja (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Government Official earns Notability. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 02:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: being a goverment official is not an automatic pass to notability; sources are required. In-depth coverage is lacking for this BLP; it does not meet WP:ANYBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it doesn't guarantee the notability pass but here we are talking about director of NCCT. And I won't call it simply a mention in various places. He's has own cryptocurrency KHCoin which makes all references related to cryptocurrency quite notable. I still think local media sources can help us further. Ultra Instinct Greninja (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and Redirect - notability of the company, Khmerhome, seems straightforward. Notability of the entrepreneur is (at the moment) more dubious. Would keep Khmerhome content for an article on that topic and redirect Mean In there. - Scarpy (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Split between Keep/Delete, and a new suggestion of redirect which can be discussed further.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note It is unclear whether the keep !voters are suggesting that sourcing may only be available in local sources or if there are mentions in international media as well. Ultra Instinct Greninja, are you saying that there is coverage related to the cryptocurrency that cover the person in depth? Or do they cover mostly the cryptocurrency? (For the latter, it may be that we would write an article about the cryptocurrency and redirect to that.) — Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They won't be answering, having been indeffed as spam/advertising-only account ☆ Bri (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost a perfect example of the worst of cryptocurrency related content on WP. And no, government officials do not inherit notability. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:08, 30 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. It may be better to nominate specific instruction articles separately. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FCMOV

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

An article on a single instruction in some version(s) of the Intel/AMD x86 architecture, consisting of very little more than specifications copied from a manual. From what I gather there is a lot of change around these from one generation to the next. Articles on single instructions from every notable computer would constitute a huge, make-work, cluttery project with dozens of disambiguation pages (how many computers had a NOP instruction?). The level of detail is excessive, and in practice the x86 devices are the only ones with these articles. Mangoe (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages on the same basis:

Note that I have excluded pages on the LOADALL and RdRand instructions because these have information beyond simple specifications. Mangoe (talk) 13:20, 13 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?} 02:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the number of articles on these instructions is not a problem as Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. - Scarpy (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this appears to be part of a manual, was this a significant development in x86 architecture? could it be redirected to x86 with a few extra words there (that also looks manualist/instructionalist) (although that article is 11th words so probably needs pruning/splitting)? ditto with the others. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all of them to x86 instruction listingsKeep JMP, TEST, INT, HLT, Merge the rest to x86 instruction listings. if there's content worth saving. Absolutely non-notable by themselves. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC); changed Enterprisey (talk!) 05:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, NOTPAPER. If there were an infinite number of instructions, I'd see the logic, but as there is a finite number there's no practical reason not to have an article for each. In the alternative, there should be notability guidelines to help explain when an instruction is or isn't notable enough for its own article. JMP, TEST and INT are more than notable enough, HLT and the various MOVxxx instructions less so. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Locke Cole, can you give some reliable sources that indicate the notability of JMP, TEST, and INT? Enterprisey (talk!) 05:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Enterprisey, there are dozens of technical references that include these instructions, as well as many books on programming for the x86 processors that include discussions on them as well. In the case of INT, I know there was a very popular list of interrupts maintained by Ralf Brown. As an aside: assembly language was one of the original methods of programming computers. Just like using a flint and stone was the primary method of creating fire for a time, we shouldn't let this be lost to history simply because it's fallen out of fashion for computer programmers today. I see potential for growth going forward, and believe this part of computing history to be important enough to keep. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Some of the commands should get their own articles, although I still think others should just get sections in a bigger article (e.g. all but HLT, INT, and JMP). I'll update my recommendation. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 28 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hukumchand Amdhare

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

Non-notable politician, Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It could be that digging through more Indian sources notability can be demonstrated. Article, at this point, seems to have undue length but is not overtly promotional. - Scarpy (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A couple of sources are a passing mention. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC. I looked at the Times of India link above and there aren't any articles with significant coverage of the subject. wumbolo ^^^ 10:45, 28 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 Hawaiian earring. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barratt–Milnor sphere

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

Not notable. Sourced only to a paper by Barratt & Milnor themselves, and my searches for other sources have produced very few mentions, almost all of those being Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, etc, and the very few exceptions mention the topic but do not give it substantial coverage. I have not been able to find evidence anywhere that this concept has attracted significant attention or coverage in the 56 years since it was published.

(A PROD was contested with the edit summary "looks notable to me; e.g., mentioned in a textbook", but neither thaqt editor nor anyone else has said what textbook it is, even if one regards a ention in one textbook as significant enough for notability. That editor has subsequently added a link to a question and answer on a forum-like question and answer site, but that can scarcely be taken as indicating notability.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Well, I didn’t name a textbook since it’s easy to find by googling; e.g., [43] Of course, a mention in a textbook is an indication of notability but need not be sufficient. It’s matter of culture: does the math community regard this example an important example in the field? One way to assess such a question is look at the conversations among the mathematicians, in places like a discussion forum. Let me ask again: what makes you think this example particularly non-notable? I admit i’m not an expert in this area and so it’s possible you (or some other editors) know better about the notability of this example.

For example, [44] suggests this example as a possible term paper topic, an indication that the example is considered important in the field. —- Taku (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to some other articles: I'm arguing the example seems important (and notable in the Wikipedia jargon). I don't have a strong opinion on the location of the example. -- Taku (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hawaiian earring (not just a plain redirect) – this space is a straightforward generalization of that one to higher dimensions. I think it's certainly noteworthy enough for a mention there given citations to the original paper over the years. Part of the problem is that I don't see that the term "Barratt-Milnor sphere" has been widely accepted. I could only find one actual use of that specific name here, which appears to be work still in progress. I wouldn't be surprised if the term was coined there, and the article creator took the name for the article here. If that's the case, the article title is definitely inappropriate. I think a merge is the most reasonable outcome here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if this does get closed as a merge, I'd be more than happy to actually execute it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the name "

n

-dimensional Hawaiian earring" appears more common, e.g., [45][46][47]. XOR'easter (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Deacon Vorbis. XOR'easter (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Deacon Vorbis and source finds by XOR'easter. This is a case of a badly named article giving the impression of a poorly sourced topic. The topic has been covered under the name of, e.g., n-dimensional Hawaiian earring, so it is appropriate to discuss it in the Hawaiian earring article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 09:46, 29 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raguluthunna Bharatham

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

A non-notable film that does not meet WP:NFP or WP:NFO. Source searches have provided no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about this film, nor any reviews in said required sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See Nandi Award for Best Story Writer, 1992, for an award. Not every review from 1992 is on the web. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - looks like there are more Indian sources to add, article is not unduly promotional. - Scarpy (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scarpy: Can you provide any independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage that you state as existent within this AfD discussion? Stating that it "looks like" there are sources is certainly not the same as said sources actually existing. My source searches have not provided much to base an article upon at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate gave me రగులుతున్న భారతం for Raguluthunna Bharatham, and searching on the Telugu Wikipedia it looked like it had an article తెలుగు సినిమాలు 1992, but looking again the Telugu doesn't actually match. At first glance thought the page was for the 1992 version of this film, but it's a list of Telugu films from 1992. This one is 81 on the page (Google Translates as Rousing India as opposed to Burning India). There is a red link for this film on that page, it's not a page with details about the film... so, I was wrong, it doesn't look like it's covered more in Indian sources after all. - Scarpy (talk) 14:05, 30 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. While there seems to be no-consensus over whether the research fellow-ship is a sufficient award, and only partial consensus over whether being an invited speaker is sufficient, there does seem reasonable consensus that the citation counts and discussion of his work mean WP:PROF is satisfied. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher J. Bishop

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. He appears to be a perfectly ordinary academic. Eleven of the fourteen of the references are papers by him, not about him, two merely include him in lists, and the other one is a paper which refers to a result of his, but is not about him. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: if I understand correctly, being an invited speaker to ICM a big deal. Sloan Research Fellowship is also a (quite?) selective scholarship. I guess it’s matter of what is “ordinary”. For me, he looks more than an ordinary mathematician. —- Taku (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, perhaps "ordinary" was not the best word to use. Certainly most academics don't receive a Sloan Foundation fellowship, so you could say that makes him more than ordinary. However, it is another matter whether this is "a highly prestigious academic award", which is the only criterion at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) that could possibly be considered relevant. The award is a grant for "support of early-career researchers", in the wording of the Sloan Foundation's own web site. Of course they select early-career researchers who they think show more promise than most, so in that sense you could say the beneficiaries of the grant are more than ordinary researchers, but merely receiving that grant does not in itself indicate more than that they show early promise, and thousands of people have received the grant. Awards listed at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) to indicate what are regarded as "highly prestigious" awards are the Nobel Prize, the MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, and the Pulitzer Prize. We are not even remotely near to that level of "highly prestigious". Christopher Bishop was given a Sloan Fellowship 26 years ago, which indicates that at that time he showed promise. By now he has had time to establish his notability by getting coverage that satisfies the general notability guideline, or by receiving some other, more prestigious award, or anything else. There is no indication that he has done so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My argument was not he is notable because of that scholarship alone; all I'm saying is it is an indication of potential notability and evidence of significant contributions to the field (cf. the comment below). The requirement contains the wording "there should be strong evidence of independent research accomplishments." The difficulty seems that whether "strong" for them is strong for Wikipedia. I don't think the standard should be Fields medal or equivalences; that's way too high. If your argument is Sloan may be selective but not selective enough for Wikipedia, then I can be sympathetic to that argument. In any case, an AfD is a place to determine that. -- Taku (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For WP:PROF#2 the subject would need a "highly prestigious" award like the ones listed above. But for WP:PROF#1 the Sloan Fellowship and ICM invitation can count as multiple contributing factors to "significant impact in their scholarly discipline," at least according to the Specific Criteria Notes in WP:PROF. Bakazaka (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just added two published book reviews to the article. That wouldn't be enough for WP:AUTHOR by themselves but I think that and the ICM invitation push it over the top. I note also that he has three papers with over 100 citations each, possibly enough for WP:PROF#C1 in a low-citation field. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: I'm probably missing something: Those three papers that you mention have citations of his own books? Shouldn't rather WP:PROF#C1 be satisfied by books being published by others, who cite Mr. Bishop's work? --1l2l3k (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those three papers are each cited by over 100 other scientific publications, mostly written by other people, as counted by Google scholar. More specifically, according to GS, 264 other publications cite Bishop's "Hausdorff dimension and Kleinian groups". 157 cite "On conformal dilatation in space". And 111 cite "Harmonic measure and arclength". —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, basically per David Eppstein. An ICM invited talk would have been enough for me. Also, Bishop also has papers (all but one solo authored) in the very top math journals Annals of Mathematics (1990, 2001, 2007), Inventiones Mathematicae (1997, 2014, 2018), Acta Mathematica (1993, 1997, 2015). Certainly satisfies WP:PROF#C1. Nsk92 (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A healthy citation profile for a low-citation field, the Sloan fellowship, the ICM invited talk and the book reviews add up to a case for notability. XOR'easter (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:PROF based on citations and authorship. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 3 September 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) wumbolo ^^^ 18:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marika Sherwood

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

Created by SPA CraigSherwood (contributions) who quite possibly has a COI based on the username.[48] Reads like a CV. Does not pass GNG based on coverage. While she has authored some books (many of these are self-published via Savannah Press which is owned by the subject and published the subject) and papers over the years she doesn't pass NPROF(1). She is untenured and does not pass any of the other NPROF criteria. Icewhiz (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well-known as an historian/author/speaker writing on Pan Africanism and Black history. Independent researcher not an academic so author might be more relevant than WP:Prof. More work is needed on sourcing and I think a reduction of the number of publications to just key publications might be good. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

It doesn't work like that. Someone has to actually find WP:SIGCOV, not merely assert that it may exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think/thought the books published by Routledge, L&W and her articles might have been enough. I have added multiple independent reviews (as refs) might help meet WP:Author - but I guess the "problems" with the more recent events might be controversial and problematic and might outweigh the writings on African things - which is where I know of her. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

I'm looking at this via the NPROF perspective - as she basically had a career as an untenured academic (in Sydney/NY/London) and has published a bit. I am ignoring, mostly, the self-published works. Her published works do not in my eyes rise up to NPROF(1) if we look at citations in say google scholar - she definitely has had some output - but on a level that is comparable to many other academics.Icewhiz (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete fails WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR. Despite a 2017 WP:BLP1E; she was invited by a student political group to give a talk, the university found the proposed title “unduly provocative” and the title was changed. Delete because what I cannot find is WP:SIGCOV of her work, life or career. Books are largelu self-published , papers are in minor journals, ad neither has had impact in terms of being cited. Page, a long list of published works, is mere WP:PROMO. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For failing to meet any notability criteria. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see any rationale for the keep. --1l2l3k (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - she got BLP1E notability for a censored speech at Manchester University, but I'm basing my weak keep on her published output. I added a review of one of her most notable books from an Ohio State literary journal, and there are several other reviews mentioned at this link [[49]], but the Industry reviews tab itself can't be direct-linked. Reviews for other books can be found, such as [[50]]. Googling her brings up seminars and symposiums where she has presented such as this one [[51]], so all together, this barely passes WP:GNG for me. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep page is WP:PROMO, I am appropriatly skeptical of the notability of academic nomads, and stuff that came up on my first searches is decidedly WP:FRINGE, I don't think I'd assign one of her books, however, prompted by timtempleton's comment I looked at her on gScholar, and her work does get cited. And there are respectful reviews of the early books on JSTOR, seems to be one of the those intellectuals who start out OK but end up FRINGE, like Linus Pauling. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think she passes WP:AUTHOR. She is one of the increasing number of independent scholars; I have tended to share E.M.Gregory's skepticism, but it seems clear that this will be an increasing phenomenon. She has managed to get several books published by mainstream presses (in addition to her self published work), and contributed to mainstream journals. (I removed a nmber of less formally published works from the articles section, as I would for any academic bio) FWIW, I see no indication her views are Fringe in the usual sense. They rather fall into the earlier tradition of associating Black and Jewish concerns, an alliance which in the mid 20th century used to be standard, but has gradually disintegrated, for causes including the rise of Black nationalism and of Israeli expansionism, and--the way I look at the world--the loss of class solidarity due to the greater economic separation of the two groups. The parallel is not with Pauling, a world=famous mainstream scientist who eventually changed his interests into somewhat Fringe territory--she has never had anywhere near his importance. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:AUTHOR. Sherwood's book After Abolition is held by 1,260 libraries and has been a subject of intense debate. Sample reviews: history.ac.uk; H-Net; Race & Class Journal; etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would say she fails WP:NPROF but satisfied WP:NAUTHOR - coffman has laid out some good reviews and there is other discussion on it above. Notability is lasting, so as long as she met it at any point then she still does. As to quality and nature of the article, obviously it needs to be gone through with more than an axe - a veritable chainsaw would be suitable. It might teeter on the edge of a G11, but in lieu of confidence of that, then it's a keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of news sources, including The Guardian. Easily possible to improve. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:53, 5 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pista House

AfDs for this article:

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

If I understand the sources correctly, the restaurant supplies its signature dish to 200 locations, not that they have 200 locations themselves. Otherwise, the article is too promotional to consider worth keeping. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references cited are all brief mentions and/or promotional in tone. I thought the reference to the local postal service delivering the food was interesting, but it is really just another passing mention. It does not appear that there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to support notability for this organization. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Even more recent mentions are just in passing. And then there is the promotional tone of the article which has been tagged as having such for 6 years. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:04, 28 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 under WP:G3. Deleted by Ymblanter. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 09:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillization of Georgian

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cyrillization of Georgian (2nd nomination)

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

No sources exist to verify any of the content in this article. Blatant violation of WP:OR, indisputably fails WP:GNG, and a possible WP:HOAX. THE DIAZ ^{userpage • talk • contribs} 03:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - upon review, this article is a case of WP:G3. Tagging article as a blatant hoax and requesting speedy deletion, in case an admin agrees. Kirbanzo (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure why it need to be "Speedy", but the supposed creator of this system, "Samuel P. Bateman" is an "internet contributor", according to Omniglot, a website which does seem to publish anything they get sent. So totally unverified. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:11, 28 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. Consensus that both NCLUB and GNG are satisfied by comparative positioning and sourcing. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A.O. Agios Ierotheos F.C.

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

Amateur club, does not meet WP:NCLUB/WP:GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete does not meet WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs sources, but searching the club's name in Greek brings up a plethora of sources so it's likely to pass WP:GNG. At random, there are a number of posts tagged to the name of the team here: [52]. (I can't read Greek.) The amateur club is a red herring as well - they play in the Greek third division. SportingFlyer talk 06:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article about Athens-area football club competing in the third highest level of Greek football. A cursory glance at Greek-language online sources shows non-routine coverage and a strong likelihood of passing the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plays at the third level in the Greek league and we have articles on all clubs at this level. Number 5 7 13:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as plays at a relatively high level and sources are available as mentioned earlier, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:15, 4 September 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arabazar

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Article created by founder. » Shadowowl | talk 15:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has adequate references. They are in Arabic, but Google Translate should provide an adequate translation. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom the coverage when translated is clearly based on PR releases. This is way too soon the service was only started 2 months ago. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:PROMO, and WP:TOOSOON - the article is just an advertisement for a new service in it's current state. Kirbanzo (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as stated by nom and the above editors. The first source is extremely clearly primary, and the other two are both very similar and from non-reliable primary-nature sites. Couldn't find any other sources in my own check. Given a very recent company, you'd expect any sourcing to be available online Nosebagbear (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above. References do not meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:53, 4 September 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 Atlantic 21-class lifeboat. Sandstein 18:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RNLB B-536

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

Inflatable small lifeboat, without any special history to make it stand out from the hundreds of similar inflatable lifeboats around the world. Lacks the required notability Fram (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does appear to be a well written article though. --palmiped | Talk 13:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:52, 15 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) 00:52, 15 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) 00:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only one source. It's also mentioned in "The Lifeboat Service in South East England" (ISBN 9781445617572) and "The Lifeboat Service in England: The North West and Isle of Man" (ISBN 9781445660011) but not significant coverage. Content could be merged to Sheringham Lifeboat Station but Atlantic 21-class lifeboat would be more suitable as a redirect target. Peter James (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Atlantic 21-class lifeboat as lifeboatcruft. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:30, 5 September 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

European Association of Political Consultants

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Apart from a few passing mentions, I found no coverage of this organization. Kleuske (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 16:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 16:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What kind of coverage are you looking for? The EAPC is an Association in which all Political Consultants from Europe are professionally organized within. It's mother organization is called International Association of Political Consultants who was founded by Joe Napolitan, who is one of the first and most famous Spin Doctors of the last century. The article should not be deleted and is of relevance. Cultureprof (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC) — Cultureprof (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The EAPC is a collection of many of the most important political consultants in modern history and today. Most spin doctors actively discourage self-coverage because this is the nature of their work. Similarly, the work of a spin doctor is borne out in the policies, strategies and campaigns of politicians, and not through personal recognition. One cannot judge the importance of an organisation or its members by the press coverage they receive. 100percentrecord (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since there clearly disagreement. However editors need to provide specific justifications, with sources if appropriate, currently the !votes are more like WP:ITSNOTABLE. Additionally, notability is not a judgement of importance
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable Ghits besides sites related to the organization, fails WP:GNG. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:52, 28 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. Nomiator withdrawl. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cripple Creek, Virginia

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

Tried to PROD this earlier, and the de-PRODer said the fact there was a post office means this is notable. However, in WP:NGEO there is no mention of this. Taking to AFD due to this - and other source besides the post office one doesn't prove notability, so there's a WP:GNG fail as well. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, area was part of late 18th century history in North America. I have not done the edit, who knows when, Wikipedia is a gazetteer. This article fulfils it. Why do we delete because others are ignorant of the history?Coal town guy (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I raise you this: Was the area notable in late 18th century history? If it was, I'd understand and withdraw. However, no sources claiming historical significance are provided, meaning that it's just another unincorporated community. As such, it's better off merged into a larger area, or just deleted. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RAISE? The onus is upon YOU to provide its NOT. Just because you have not read the history means everyone else pays. Page 54 History of Southwest Virginia, 1746-1786, Washington County, 1777-1870

By Lewis Preston Summers. 2 families reside there and are declared to be the first to attempt to explore the area. Later further attempts result in a major effort to support all parties in French and Indian War. We are discussing the first possible settlers of that entire area which later became a major industrial asset by clearing the way for coal mining. Page 13 VA Legislative documents The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Volume 10. Treaties with local tribes to establish lead mines which were the basis of a developing coal industryCoal town guy (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Populated places recognized by the USGS, as this one is, are considered notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:14, 28 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 National Basketball League (Philippines). (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laguna Pistons

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

Contested PROD without reason. A non-notable team who competes in a amateur (arguarbly non-notable) basketball league. Fails WP:GNG ^{Babymissfortune} 01:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no notable Ghits, fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable club, although the league probably is. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Basketball League (Philippines). There's some coverage of the league, but none on individual teams. I've redirected 2018–19 Laguna Pistons season to Laguna Pistons; clearly not enough coverage for year-by-year articles at this time. The template {{Laguna Pistons roster}} should get nominated at TfD if this is not kept. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Basketball League (Philippines) as a plausible search term. It's the simplest form of WP:PRESERVE (which could have been boldly done outside of an AfD); there is no notable content here to merge.—Bagumba (talk) 06:58, 4 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paralisa

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Creator was just recently warned to stop creating articles of non-notable songs a few days ago. A look at their talk page and recent contributions suggests this has been a routine issue. White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 01:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything reliable or any significant coverage. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cabayi (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no notable Ghits, fails WP:NSONG, WP:NMUSIC, and WP:GNG. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any sources to show me how this song meets WP:NSONG, or WP:GNG. Delete JC7V-constructive zone 02:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All I could find were music videos and the like. At first I was considering suggesting a redirect to the artist's page, but then I realized that the song's title seems to mean "paralysis" in Portuguese, so a redirect probably isn't a proper option at this time. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me as vague keep per this source from Metropolitana FM, a Brazilian radio station.--Biografer (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In addition to the source provided in the !vote directly above, two sources were added to the article on 31 August 2018‎ (UTC), after all of the delete !votes above occurred. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All 3 of which relate to the release (wikt:lançar#Portuguese = launch, publish) of the record rather than any notability it may (or may not) have achieved. Cabayi (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Uhlir

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

Seems to be an obvious case of self-promotion. Article has only ever had one editor and external links include subject's LinkedIn page. And, most importantly, the subject doesn't seem to be particularly notable. Saget53 (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nasir Khan (Bangladeshi actor)

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

I've looked around quite a bit, and I'm not able to find any reliable sources that cover the topic - everything that comes up for me is about Nasir Khan (actor) instead. The article claims that he has acted in more than five hundred Bengali films. However, I'm not able to find any evidence that this is accurate. If somebody is able to find a source saying that this is true, and that some of the films he acted in are notable, I would be more than happy to withdraw my nomination. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What do you find when you search for his name in Bengali? I trust you speak the language? Sam Sailor 18:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sam Sailor: No, I don't speak Bengali, but with the help of Google Translate I searched for his name in Bengali. I'm finding a tiny bit more, but still not anything that establishes that he meets WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Sorry for the late reply, btw, apparently I somehow wasn't watching this page.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, and ProQuest, including by Bengali script name, found no reliable sources. As such, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:00, 31 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Davenport

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Even if notable, this puff piece would be a definite case of WP:TNT. Edwardx (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional bio. Subject is no relation, for what its worth. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://elsa.org/about/

[2] ttps://elsa-thenetherlands.org/

[3] ttps://www.elsa-germany.org/startseite/

[4] ttps://delegations.elsa.org/institutions/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]