< 17 November	19 November >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Longest professional baseball game. Sandstein 08:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Koza[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASEBALL Driving in the winning run in one game doesn't pass notability. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Longest professional baseball game as he's not notable independent of that game but his role in it is significant enough to warrant a redirect. Smartyllama (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect He's definitely not notable enough for his own article, but Smartyllama's redirect makes sense because of Koza's role in the game. I would argue that simply playing in that game would not be sufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of his notoriety is related to that game, so redirect could make sense, but he does have coverage that is separate from that game. The best I found was this, from 4 years before that game, and if anyone can find another article separate from the game of similar quality I would say he would meet GNG and would be appropriate to keep. Rlendog (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Tv Africa[edit]

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

Non-notable movement lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 22:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Tv Africa is a registered media company that has contributed towards African art and culture youth development below are some new company that has written about Quick Tv Africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcvicworld (talk • contribs) 15:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the added sources are not helpful for establishing notability. The page also is so promotional that it doesn't even say that it's a company. Even if better sources - reliable third-party sources that cover the company in some detail - could be found, the page would need to be rewritten in its entirety. There's nothing salvageable here. Huon (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources provided are not WP:RS, hence notability is not established. ShunDream (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sedition (UK band)[edit]

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

Unsourced for over a decade, lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) No hits in major searches, no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 22:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 22:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A Google search, even with the qualifier "UK band", only brings up info about a similarly named band in Canada. Humorously, I was able to find a 2008 blog post asking about who the band was and not being able to nail much of anything concrete about them down, besides the unsourced info on the wiki page. However, that's basically the only presence I can find on the web besides a few discography lists and a few sites copy-pasting from the wiki page. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a hunt round and there is very little on them, and people are unsure who they are. This article nts.live-sedition gives a round of up several bands called Sedition, and does give some facts about the band in our article, though how much they are echoing our article I don't know, and how much we can accept NTS Radio as a reliable source on notability I don't know. And there is much confusion - this YouTube video which has the image and text from out article is apparently a different Sedition - a Glasgow band. Ah - I have got this from last.fm, which is the same as the NTS.Live piece, and I note that it was written by davess = the same user who created our article, and who identifies as one of the band members on the article talkpage: Talk:Sedition (UK band). All we appear to have on this band comes from one user, who has entered the same information in user-created websites. The band could have existed, but based on the one witness, who for our purposes is unreliable, we don't even know that. So we don't even know the band existed, let alone that they were notable. SilkTork (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oprah Sideverson[edit]

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

1.6 million subscribers is quiet a few, but I cannot find any actual 3rd party sources for this person. As such, I am a bit unsure about notability, there are plainly a lot of people following this particular person, but I cannot find anything written about him. Xevus11 (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mass subscribing is too easy in Youtube for subscriber counts to be worth much. The total lack of anything even close to a 3rd party source shows non-notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a comprehensive lack of reliable coverage in either news outlets or literature. Passing mentions, press releases, directory-style entries, and generally unreliable sources such as tabloids and blogs, all insufficient to qualify as either in-depth or persistent coverage from the independent, secondary reliable sources that are necessary to pass the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. ——SerialNumber54129 12:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And salt. Sandstein 08:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parnia Porsche[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

queried speedy delete "not notable" Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Rename and trim What is probably notable here and what most of the article is about, and what most of most of the references are about, is the multiyear multievent controversial advertising campaign. Notability is not inherited so delete, or rename and trim the article to be about the advertising campaign. But the current title subject does not appear to be notable in their own right. Aoziwe (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two previous deletions and still being recreated. Should this be WP:SALTed? Aoziwe (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Weick[edit]

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

Much as it may delight us to document the crazy antics of this lady, the only incident that gained any mainstream attention at all was the original slushie-throwing incident, and even that only made HuffPo, scarcely a neutral commentator on right wing people. The rest of the sources are garbage and Google shows nothing better. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Keep The 2015 version of the article at special:diff/645034914 showed that this person was the subject of media attention for multiple unrelated events. This person meets WP:GNG. Citations show this person featured as a subject in venues including Fox News, ABC News, The Washington Post, and The Christian Post. Comedy Central's Tosh.0 ran a five-minute documentary on this person. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly and seemingly unrelated to any recent event, The Washington Post just published a more complete biography on this person a month ago.

Carman, Tim (23 October 2018). "The woman who claims Monster Energy drinks are a tool of the devil is back, just in time for Halloween". Washington Post.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources listed above were not network news, but were local stations. I changed the Fox News and ABC News to the stations. StrayBolt (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Snow Keep No compliance with WP:Before. Sources per User:Bluerasberry established WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Sources added/restored. Should be a candidate for WP:Snow. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For some reason back in February 2015 an editor decided it was a good idea to delete most of the reliable sources while retaining the crap sources.[1] And here were are. I've restored many sources but it needs further work. Some of the YouTube links should have a |via= as they are actually mainstream local news broadcasts which are not credited in the cite. -- GreenC 23:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the via=YouTube and the attributions to mainstream media, which are now wikified. She is definitely a few bricks short of a full load (the MONSTER drink video is telling), but that is unrelated to WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Seems obvious. The WaPo article from just last month seals GNG and eliminates any ONEEVENT kinda claims. This AfD is the work of Satan! 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is unquestionably remarkable the WaPo article came out just a few weeks ago. This is a Jesus in the toast moment. -- GreenC 21:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus toast Some intended irony, I am sure. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22 Weeks[edit]

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

A short film by an unknown filmmaker based on an article in WorldNetDaily (yes, really). I cannot trace any significant coverage in any source that approaches reliability. No professional reviews. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not look to pass WP:GNG/WP:NFILM. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris King (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. His article was created based on his political candidacy, but he lost, so he fails WP:NPOL. Coverage is focused on his candidacy and not his life in business, so this fails WP:GNG as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would've made this article myself had I thought he was notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Possibly a WP:BLP1E. All coverage is WP:MILL and WP:ROUTINE so no notability present. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 10:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Upul Tharanga[edit]

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

Only has 18 international centuries, falls short of the minimum of 25 required for a list. StickyWicket (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS/WP:NOTMIRROR. Content is easily sourced on ESPNCricinfo. Also the 25 requirement isn't a policy, it's a seemingly invented guideline created by Wikiproject Cricket. Ajf773 (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Circle time[edit]

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

Article reads like a non-notable essay. Contested prod. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is highly notable as the article lists numerous sources and a selection of books about the topic is listed below. The current state of the article seems reasonable and, in any case, any deficiences of style or substance are not a reason to delete per our policies WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:BITE, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Note also that the article has existed for over 12 years and has had numerous editors and thousands of readers. The recent attempts to delete the article seem to have been made without any discussion or engagement with the topic. Andrew D. (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Circle Time in the Primary Classroom: Your Essential Guide
Developing Circle Time: Taking Circle Time Much Further
Quality Circle Time in the Secondary School: A Handbook of Good Practice
Circle Time for the Very Young: For Nursery, Reception and Key Stage 1 Children
Circle Time for Adolescents
Magic Circles: Self-Esteem for Everyone in Circle Time
Circles, PSHE and Citizenship: Assessing the Value of Circle Time in Secondary School
Math Activities for Circle Time

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References already present in page, if cited less than ideally, are enough to establish clear notability. There's a lot wrong with this article but I don't see a compelling reason to TNT it in order to get something better. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Needs a substantial rewrite to be encyclopedic, but possibly passes WP:GNG if there's enough scientific documentation on it. I wouldn't be opposed to WP:TNTing it though, the current article reads like something off a parent/teacher info site. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is much more pertinent than a lot of the nonsense that wikipedia has so much to say about, though I expect it is the type of topic where the people involved are not updating wikipedia and the people updating wikipedia are oblivious of. - Obviously it should not read like an advert. - It would be good to cite how pervasive the practice or equivalent terminology is in non-English speaking parts of the world. EE 88.111.90.165 (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Per Andrew Davidson's list of sources and many, many others in e.g. this GScholar search. Further, nom fails to give valid deletion rationale. Claim that it reads like an essay shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how notability is judged. The fact is that the article could read like an essay written by a semi-literate third grader and it wouldn't mean a thing at AfD, where we evaluate articles based on the sources in the world rather than the lack of sources in the article in its present state per WP:ARTN. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I do know how notability is judged, thank you. Anyway, I wouldn't be against Nathan2055's suggestion, but the article is in such terrible shape that it's difficult to tell if it really is a notable topic—and for the record, Andrew Davidson, that the article has been here for twelve years really isn't a valid !keep rationale. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, but we don't delete articles for being in terrible shape. Not even for twelve years. We delete them if there are no existing sources in the world to establish notability. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Styles[edit]

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

Bio article has been unsourced since at least 2015, so no evidence of notability demonstrated or of meeting WP:BASIC. I've found a couple of sources – [2] (this one even describes the subject as "little known") and [3] – but they look to be passing mentions only. Further, subject does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR – one "significant" role in Foreign Exchange (Australian TV series), maybe two in Fair City, but looks to be debatable... In any case, unsourced WP:BLPs have no place on Wikipedia, and this one is unlikely to be shown to be notable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 18:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be very little IRS so fails GNG and NSUBJECT. Aoziwe (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find any suitable references in ProQuest (in fact there was only 1 passing reference (to her singular appearance) in a newspaper TV guide review of the episode of Foreign Exchange (Australian TV series) in which she appeared). Cabrils (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'little known' =no WP:GNG. Lack of proper sources showing the significant coverage make this a delete for me. JC7V (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I gather that Foreign Exchange is regarded as an iconic program in Ireland, but even 'where are they now' articles (eg [4] and [5]) have very little about the subject of this article, and that was her only significant role, so she does not meet WP:NACTOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A//Political[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) No meaningful hits in searches of Google, Google Books, EBSCOhost. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. PROD'd in 2009. czar 17:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 17:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything to show this is a notable band. I also don't see the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Japanland: A Year in Search of Wa[edit]

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

Google, Google News, Google Books etc. all draw blanks for any coverage at all of this book/documentary in independent reliable (i.e., non-blog) sources. There's a review on Popmatters.com but this appears to be a blog. There's also a publicity piece written by the agent on Publisher's Weekly but this isn't independent. Lacks notability, verifiability per WP:GNG and WP:V FOARP (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a quick Google search finds reviews in The New York Times [6], Los Angeles Times [7], and Chicago Tribune [8]. Newspaper archive search finds several more in newspapers across the country. Book alone easily passes WP:NBOOK#1. Documentary info and coverage (e.g., a separate Los Angeles Times review of the documentary [9]) is a bonus. Bakazaka (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, searching for the name didn't bring up anything, I guess it was because I was including the colon in the search. Nomination withdrawn - thanks Bakazaka. FOARP (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That happens sometimes. The article had some close paraphrasing/copyvio issues anyway, so it was a good opportunity to fix those issues and add some citations. Bakazaka (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Myra Nicholson[edit]

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

Non-notable supercentenarian. The dispute over her living arrangements is a clear case of WP:BIO1E, and the rest is about how she lived, she got old, she died. Maybe worth a minibio somewhere, but certainly not a full page. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOPAGE. Best recorded on a list because nothing else of any import is known. Legacypac (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only sparse WP:ROUTINE local coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that the "oldest X" is notable. The content of the article is routine trivia fancruft. She lived. She avoided the Reaper longer then most. She died. Pure WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on the List of supercentenarians by continent, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The only coverage this person received was because of her reaching an advanced age. Her age is notable, not her life or deeds. Hence her placement among the oldest Oceanian people ever is sufficient for recording notable facts in this encyclopedia. — JFG ^talk 09:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the 11th-oldest in the world has more to do with the lack of strong documentary records in some areas than anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the nature of the coverage and lack of anything substantial. JC7V (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is in fact no policy-based reason for deletion here. Sandstein 08:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice of the Philippines (season 3)[edit]

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

Show cancelled and replaced by the upcoming Search for the Idol Philippines Hiwilms (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to List of Guinean films. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guinean films of 2009[edit]

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

Needs to be redirected to List of Guinean films, like all of the tiny non-notable stubs this editor has created. Softlavender (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Could have just done it without an AfD. Ajf773 (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Close As Ajf773 pointed out, this did not require an AfD. The discussion can be closed. Capt. Milokan (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to List of Guinean films. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guinean films of 2007[edit]

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

Another tiny stub, with only FR-wiki wikilinks, that needs to be redirected to List of Guinean films. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you just redirect it yourself then (or at least combine these into one group nom)? Starting four separate AFDs for the same issue with the same related lists is just a waste of process and time. postdlf (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. And yes, this could have been speedily redirected without an AfD. Ajf773 (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Close As Ajf773 pointed out, this did not require an AfD. The discussion can be closed. Capt. Milokan (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was wrong venue/procedural close. Not a place for discussing mergers. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ozamiz–Oroquieta Road[edit]

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

To be merged to N79 highway (Philippines) hueman1 (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue if the nominator wants it merged. This is Articles for Deletion, not Articles for Merging. Nightfury 10:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Nightfury: Twinkle does not have Articles for Merging option. Does it? --hueman1 (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HueMan1, yes it does. You will need to tag it, the same way as adding a maintenance tag. Nightfury 14:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or "Speedy Keep". Wrong venue, as noted. The nomination does not imply the topic is not notable. I don't know about Twinkle, but you can follow procedure at wp:MERGE to open a merge discussion. That basically will take place at Talk page of the suggested Merge target, with notice given at both articles involved. --Doncram (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The "keep" and "delete" sides have both put up good arguments which in my view cancel each other out; hence there doesn't appear to be a consensus for either. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cooley[edit]

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

Sources for this artist are mostly glancing mentions and non-independent items. I could not actually find or verify a single independent source online, although at least one is mentioned in the article. While autobiography may not be a deletion rationale in itself, it's worth noting that one SPA has edited the page for two years, and all the images uploaded, including a self-portrait, have been under the account "Adam Cooley". In any case, it's GNG Fail for lack of independent RS in multiple sources that cover the subject in-depth. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this self-promotional, possibly autobiographical article created by an SPA in on a non-notable artist who has shown in galleries that have no historical or internet credibility, with one exception, the Tokyo Met Museum. However a search of the museum's collection does not show the artist is represented. Does not meet notability standards nor warrant an encyclopedia article. Netherzone (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet WP:ARTIST and citations don't check out. Cannot find anything when I do newspaper searches. Netherzone (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it seems to me that the sources are admissible and objective. The problem is that the sources come from Japan and are not known or accessible as readily to those outside of Japan. For example, ‘Gekkan Bijutsu’ is a well respected art magazine in Japan that has been in existence since 1975. It is a well respected and historically relevant Japanese art magazine that is still being published. The artist in question lives and works in Japan and by all accounts seems to be thriving well in that market. There are other very famous artists in the Japanese market who never get covered in the west. Wikipedia allows people to access more than just the uber-famous and it seems very useful for comparative studies or just general knowledge to be able find references to people, events and things that don’t get exposure in the west. The question comes down to how can references and citations that have significant relevance for one part of the world be proportionately represented in another part of the world. The galleries in Japan that are located in the Hankyu Department stores and Daimaru Department stores are considered highly prestigious venues for artists to exhibit. The most successful artists in Japan exhibit there. Again the artist in question has exhibited in both and this is referenced in the aforementioned magazine ‘Gekkan Bijutsu’ the problem seems to be the fact that the relative value of exhibiting in a Department store is not proportionately represented and the historical relevance and prestige of the source -the magazine- is also not proportionately valued.KevinJardine (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin above editor KevinJardine has made 300 or so edits over 3 years, ONLY to the Adam Cooley article. It's either the article subject or his mom. Clear WP:DUCK. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if ‘Gekkan Bijutsu’ or these Department stores were significant, that alone isn't enough. --Theredproject (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair I am neither the subject nor related to the subject in any way. I work in the art industry in Japan as a translator and have nothing to do with selling or promotion. My goal is to document this active art market. Examples of this are the groups Hakujitsu-kai and Nitten . Hakujitsu-kai is a painter’s guild in Japan where many of the top artists are or have been members but you'd be hard pressed to find their names or the group itself in any western media or websites. There is virtually no information about them to English speakers. It’s a shame because this is where the Japanese art market is thriving; not only in the pop art of Takashi Murakami or Yayoi Kusama. Wikipedia is able to create a truly detailed network of macro-relations to micro-relations and this is my motivation for writing.
I choose this particular artist because he is originally from New York and it was easier to find materials and references about him in English. This artist is well established in the Japanese market which I think is quite remarkable. I researched his work, called newspapers and magazines and any other sources I could find to meet the acceptable guidelines for this article.
I am preparing to document a few of the most famous artists working in Japan who are valued highly for Japanese art collectors. Finding, translating and using certain Japanese publications is a difficult task and I am not paid to write Wikipedia articles nor do I gain anything from doing so. I simply see gaps with regards to information on the real Japanese art market and I’d like to play a part filling in those gaps.
I have made 300 or so edits to only one article because I am the one who started the article. Doesn't it make sense that I would keep improving it? We all know how hard it is to find references that meet all of the proper citation guidelines. I am improving the article and thanks to intelligent critiques I am able to improve the integrity of my writing.
However, I’m concerned in this case about the integrity of the critique. The language is openly malicious and meant to be provocative. Presuming I am the artist or the artist’s mother is unfair and not a sound argument towards the deletion of the article. A presumption is an opinion not an argument.
In addition to this, a casual search finds biographical articles with less than five citations yet the article in question has significantly more and from diverse sources -where is the line to be drawn?KevinJardine (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite clear who you are. You created the article and added multiple images of Adam Cooley. You uploaded over a dozen images, which were taken down due to copyright concerns. But then, miracle of miracles, Adam Cooley (even though you're appparently "neither the subject nor related to the subject in any way") somehow found out about your image upload problem and sent information to OTRS to have the image permissions fixed! You worked only on this article for over two years. We have a category for this kind of activity, and it is called WP:DUCK. Please spare us the baloney. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to be covered by a feature in Kansai Time Out (a former mainstream magazine in Japan), and also is discussed in the book Japanland: A Year in Search of Wa. Multiple reliable sources (as in more than one) satisfies the GNG. Barely. EnPassant (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Split votes with heavy analysis performed on both sides. If anyone strongly feels like I should reverse this, I will, but looks to me as if there's a lot that needs to be debated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 18:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redditaddict, I don't see a split, as KevinJardine is obviously the article subject-- that could be confirmed via OTRS. Wihtout his !vote it was 3 deletes one keep.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe in the integrity of wikipedia and my own contributions to it. This accusation is categorically untrue. I am not the subject of this article. Again ThatMontrealIP's accusation is nothing more than a hunch. I'm sure ThatMontreal is a very good editor and I welcome constructive critiques but please stop implying that intuitions are facts.KevinJardine (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP (and the various IPs they used before finally creating an account) has an extensive history of AfD well-poisoning by accusing those who disagree with them of direct COI, or being spammers, or in your case, even the subject himself "or his mom". ThatMontrealIP needs to start recognizing WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:Civility not a week from now, not tomorrow, but now. EnPassant (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GigglesnortHotel! Good to see you again. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to satisfy the multiple independent reliable sources requirement - and they are spread over a period of 20 years, so sustained as well. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing appears solid enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I found the arguments of KevinJardine persuasive despite the likely COI. Curiocurio (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exhibition in Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Art covers WP:ARTIST as well as other sources. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mr. Cooley's identity as User:Aciam888 has been verified: OTRS ticket#2017082510002164. This obviously doesn't rule out some other COI with KevinJardine. I will note, for whatever it is worth, that Aciam888 in an IRC help chat (control of the account verified by a requested edit) denies a connection: The only contact I have had from him was when he contatced me through my website asking for permission to use some of my images for an article he wanted to write, i sent my standard press kit and a few weeks later he messaged me that I would have to upload the images to wiki. This does not weigh in on his notability but given the suspicions raised in this case is posted as as background. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, all of the images in the current article were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by Aciam888 (or, in other words, Adam Cooley), in February 2017, six months before the OTRS ticket.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:00, 18 Novemeber 2018 (UTC)

Delete, promo, no sigcov. Szzuk (talrg k) 13:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Kansai Timeout is the only thing that's even possibly an independent RS making more than a glancing reference here (though even that is dubious, given that Timeout is a travel/events mag, not an Arts publication), but by one article by itself is not enough to show significant coverage. The Japanland book mentions his name exactly twice but purely as a friend of the author (i.e., it's not telling you that he's notable for anything or covering him per se) - it doesn't even mention that he's an artist (just says he used to do mime). Everything else is either not independent (i.e., the websites of the galleries showing the exhibits), not an RS, or not giving any more than a glancing reference. And yeah, I also think this may be self-promo. FOARP (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the link to the google book preview but it is only a preview. He appears in three chapters not just the one chapter (chapter 16) listed. Since it is just the book preview it doesn't show all of the chapters of the book, of course, and if you scroll down a bit further it explains that "Some pages have been omitted from the book preview". And as for the documentary, half is his performance art piece on the street and the other half shows his sculptures, masks and paintings.

I have found a number of artists listed on Wikipedia with zero references (I will not name them here as it would be in bad taste) but here we are talking about an artist who has plenty of diverse references that span 20 years and continue up to the present. Clearly the article has shown his notability and the question of COI has also been clarified and cleared. Of the all the reliable sources that I have personally sought and verified there are at least two newspaper articles, two magazine features, one book, one television documentary and that's to name only a few. I'd appreciate if other editors were trying to help me become a better editor but I don't feel that is what's happening. I am not an experienced editor. I am still painstakingly learning the ropes but I have found lots of material on this artist and keep finding more. I write about what I know. I know this industry and I know that the artist in question has proved his worth and continues to do so.KevinJardine (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TimeOut is not an art journal, it is a ~~weekly~~ magazine for "things to do" in a given city. Netherzone (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kansai Time Out was a monthly magazine that did a lot more than inform about “things to do”. It had every single arts-related cultural listing in the Kansai region and very good articles about the arts which seems to makes good sense for a magazine that is listing the most relevant cultural events of the time. On top of this, the question of it being an art journal or not is completely derailing the conversation and insignificant. The question is whether the source is a reliable one; not whether it is a high brow art journal -bottom line it is a reliable source.
For a fair assessment read the following Japan Times article:Kansai Time Out: 30 Years without a Breather KevinJardine (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be too blunt, KevinJardine, but if you wanted to get better as an editor, editing more than one article during the years you've been on this site might have been a good way to go. Other artists articles might also be badly sourced - in which case they should be improved, or if this is not possible, deleted - but this has no bearing on the notability of this article (see WP:WAX). Since you apparently have a copy of Japanland: A Year in Search of Wa to hand, can you tell us in which chapters, on which pages, he appears, and whether the content goes beyond that visible in the copy on Google Books? EDIT and whilst we're at it, since the author of that book is a friend of Cooley's, could it ever be considered an independent, reliable source about him? FOARP (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to you're question is a resounding "Yes, it is a reliable source".

She wrote a book which featured the artist because she saw an article about him in a magazine and searched him out for the purpose of writing about him. This is in the preview! How do you forget to mention that? You keep misreading details, conveniently not giving the whole picture and creating misleading arguments.

The author was writing a book on Japan, she saw an article about the artist and tracked him down in order to feature him in the book and PBS television documentary. They were total strangers and she found out about him via a magazine article -a clear secondary source WP:BASIC. By your logic any interviewer in any situation has a conflict of interest just by being in the same room as the interviewee! This is a logical absurdity.KevinJardine (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Am I missing the source, or do we have a WP:RS that verifies the exhibition in Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Art. I looked, but couldn't verify, beyond his bio on his own website. --Theredproject (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. There are actualy three claims related to the Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Art: a) that he exhibited there in 1999 (sourced by non-rs interview in TimeOut magazine), b)that he exhibited there in 2001 (no source) and c) that they acquired two works for their permanent collection. The last is strange, because when I go to their website and click "collection" they have only about 40 works in their collection, and they collect only sculpture and calligraphy. I checked the English and the Japanese page, no paintings in the collection. It is also worth noting that sources 8-12 are for Gallery Chayamachi, a for-hire gallery space. Scroll down this link for the prices in yen. If you follow the sources in the article for Gallery Chyamachi, you will see that all of the Chayamachi sources are for the six day "solo" exhibitions that run Thursday to the following Tuesday (for the fee of $1700USD/ 200,000 yen stated in the above rentals link). Kansai ArtBeat says of Gallery Chayamachi: "...this rental gallery located near Umeda emphasizes that each exhibition is a work of art in itself and the product of mutual understanding between them and the artist." Do we even allow listings of shows in rental galleries? It's not a great precedent to include pay-to-play exhibitions in an article, nor is it to use these as sources of notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting that yes, we do allow such things. Not everything in an article is necessarily meant to show notability of the subject but rather simply listed as relevant support. WP:BASIC KevinJardine (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, sourcing should be independent of the subject. If it was pay-for-play then it isn't independent. FOARP (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the way the art world works in the west is not the same as in the east. Art work is often priced by the size, there are strict hierarchies in the art world, and the rental gallery system is standard practice for the majority of galleries. Japan is one of those places where land costs and rents are so high that the majority of non-rental galleries don’t last. Gallery Chayamachi was one of the oldest galleries in the city, it was a rental gallery but rental galleries here still have standards; money alone doesn’t get you in. If you want to understand more about the rental gallery system in Japan here's a great article on the subject by the Japan Times: Japan’s unique “rental gallery” system KevinJardine (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about ducks, are they the same all over the world?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic discussion with the actual article subject
Comment:Hi. i am not very good at things technological, so please bear with me if i am not correct in my post here. I am Adam Cooley, the artist that this article appears to be about. I am not voting for this wiki article either way, but after speaking with another wiki administrator yesterday they suggested that I make a comment here as well. I am Adam Cooley,the artist the article is about. I have never written an autobiography for wiki. I have never written anything on wiki before today, nor have i edited on wiki before today. I have never met KevinJardine, Toniballioni, or any other person who i knew was a wiki writer. I have been contacted by both KevinJardine and Toniballioni though, first i was contacted by KevinJardine (i believe) through my websites contact email, who asked for permission to use images from my website for an article. I sent my press kit and a few weeks later I was contacted again and asked to add pictures to wiki giving permission for usage. I was then later contacted by Toniballioni who wanted me to prove I was actually the artist Adam Cooley, which i did. most recently I got a notice in my email that photos had been deleted from wiki, so it was the first time to notice the comments about me. I have never asked to be written about, either here in wiki or any magazine, newspaper, or book. i also have never paid for any articles in wiki or any other newspaper, magazine, newspaper, or book. i have though received numerous "offers" when the article was apparently up for deletion or some similar times directly to my email, like this one: I am an experienced Wikipedian. I will do online research and rewrite the content in encyclopedic tone, format the draft according to Wikipedia guidelines and get it approved, I will forward the final draft for you to review before submitting. Please respond for more details. Regards, Tamsin I dont want this to come off as sounding rude, but i dont really care about whether i am listed in a wiki article or not. I seldom use a computer for more than checking email, booking plane tickets, or corresponding with friends...and youtube of course. I am most offended though that my name has been dragged though the mud, my character has been personally attacked. Claiming that i wrote an autobiography about myself is libelous, and making comments about my mother is unforgivable and just really rude and insensitive. I do know and I am friends with her Karin Muller, but I did not know her until after she met me for my first interview on the first day of filming me for her documentary and we became friends much later on. It offends me that you would suggest that seasoned extremely experienced documentarian/ writer like herself would not be a reliable source. This whole idea that everything is "fake news" is tiring. I hope you understand that people are more than text on a page, I did not ask to be on wiki and I definitely dont think I deserve to have my character defamed. If you have any questions or if you dont believe i am how i say i am, you can contact me directly through my email, or though facebook video chat.Aciam888 (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] This is all getting really fishy and I think and SPI is in order. The real Adam Cooley has a dedicated web site, a very active Instagram account with 358 posts and a Twitter account with 1,258 posts.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Comment:Hi again, yes, I am still Adam Cooley, the real Adam Cooley. i still never written an autobiograghy. I believe it will be very easy to prove I am who I say I am, I am on facebook, instagram, i dont read twitter but yes it is hooked up to my facebook. I am also the same Adam Cooley who has been in the book Japanland, Gekkan Bijutsu,the KTO, Maru, the yomiyuri, the japan times, japanese tv five or six times, and Gekkan gallery (coming out Dec 1st) so my picture is out there and i will be easy to identify after a few seconds of video chatting. I have no problem chatting via, facebook, Line, video chats are fine as well. I am extremely down to earth to a fault, so please feel free to reach out and contact me if you have any doubt as to who i am. I was told not to post my email address here but it is easy to find it on my website. if anyone wants to speak with me i will have time exactly 5 hours or so from now. Aciam888 (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] This whole thing is just a weird sideshow and ultimately has no bearing on whether or not this page should be deleted. The real issue is showing significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The independence of the "Japanland" book is questionable, the Timeout magazine article is questionable as an RS for art and anyway a single article is not enough to substantiate notability, and all the other sources appear not to be independent/reliable sources. Mr. Cooley may be offended by us questioning whether the sources needed exist, but we have been unable to find them and if they do not exist then this article should be deleted. As an experienced Wikipedian, Mr. Cooley should understand this already. He should also be familiar with WP:DUCK and WP:PROMO. FOARP (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Comment:What are you talking about FOARP? I am not the writer of the article. I have not written in wiki ever until today. lets try to do this together. I am the artist the article is about. I did not solicit the article. I did not write the article. I dont care if the article is deleted or not, i only care about the libelous comments. These are the comments i find defamatory : 1) claiming I wrote or edited the article. 2) insults about my mother writing the article. and now 3) Claiming i am experienced wikipedian. It think you are getting me confused with the person who actually wrote the article and the person who emailed me wanting to fix "my" (meaning the article about me, Adam Cooley) article that was up for deletion. I am not going to keep up bantering with you. I would ask whoever is moderating this to please report this, as i feel I have been the subject of both libel and defamation. Aciam888 (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Hi Adam, your comment above said "I am an experienced Wikipedian", it wasn't clear from the formatting that you were quoting someone else, typically quotation marks and/or spacing are used for that, otherwise it looks like you who is making the statement. Even if you are not an experienced Wikipedian, you now have a chance to familiarise yourself with WP:DUCK and WP:PROMO. As for defamation, nothing written here is defamatory. Probably the best way for the subject of an article to get involved in its production is to take a hands-off approach since otherwise we end up with obvious COI problems. And again, pretty much everything in what you've just said has no bearing at all on whether this page should be deleted or not, which comes down to the reliability and/or independence of the sourcing. FOARP (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic discussion with the actual article subject

Comment:Hi. i am not very good at things technological, so please bear with me if i am not correct in my post here. I am Adam Cooley, the artist that this article appears to be about. I am not voting for this wiki article either way, but after speaking with another wiki administrator yesterday they suggested that I make a comment here as well. I am Adam Cooley,the artist the article is about. I have never written an autobiography for wiki. I have never written anything on wiki before today, nor have i edited on wiki before today. I have never met KevinJardine, Toniballioni, or any other person who i knew was a wiki writer. I have been contacted by both KevinJardine and Toniballioni though, first i was contacted by KevinJardine (i believe) through my websites contact email, who asked for permission to use images from my website for an article. I sent my press kit and a few weeks later I was contacted again and asked to add pictures to wiki giving permission for usage. I was then later contacted by Toniballioni who wanted me to prove I was actually the artist Adam Cooley, which i did. most recently I got a notice in my email that photos had been deleted from wiki, so it was the first time to notice the comments about me. I have never asked to be written about, either here in wiki or any magazine, newspaper, or book. i also have never paid for any articles in wiki or any other newspaper, magazine, newspaper, or book. i have though received numerous "offers" when the article was apparently up for deletion or some similar times directly to my email, like this one:

I am an experienced Wikipedian. I will do online research and rewrite the content in encyclopedic tone, format the draft according to Wikipedia guidelines and get it approved, I will forward the final draft for you to review before submitting. Please respond for more details. Regards, Tamsin I dont want this to come off as sounding rude, but i dont really care about whether i am listed in a wiki article or not. I seldom use a computer for more than checking email, booking plane tickets, or corresponding with friends...and youtube of course. I am most offended though that my name has been dragged though the mud, my character has been personally attacked. Claiming that i wrote an autobiography about myself is libelous, and making comments about my mother is unforgivable and just really rude and insensitive. I do know and I am friends with her Karin Muller, but I did not know her until after she met me for my first interview on the first day of filming me for her documentary and we became friends much later on. It offends me that you would suggest that seasoned extremely experienced documentarian/ writer like herself would not be a reliable source. This whole idea that everything is "fake news" is tiring. I hope you understand that people are more than text on a page, I did not ask to be on wiki and I definitely dont think I deserve to have my character defamed. If you have any questions or if you dont believe i am how i say i am, you can contact me directly through my email, or though facebook video chat.Aciam888 (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is all getting really fishy and I think and SPI is in order. The real Adam Cooley has a dedicated web site, a very active Instagram account with 358 posts and a Twitter account with 1,258 posts.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Hi again, yes, I am still Adam Cooley, the real Adam Cooley. i still never written an autobiograghy. I believe it will be very easy to prove I am who I say I am, I am on facebook, instagram, i dont read twitter but yes it is hooked up to my facebook. I am also the same Adam Cooley who has been in the book Japanland, Gekkan Bijutsu,the KTO, Maru, the yomiyuri, the japan times, japanese tv five or six times, and Gekkan gallery (coming out Dec 1st) so my picture is out there and i will be easy to identify after a few seconds of video chatting. I have no problem chatting via, facebook, Line, video chats are fine as well. I am extremely down to earth to a fault, so please feel free to reach out and contact me if you have any doubt as to who i am. I was told not to post my email address here but it is easy to find it on my website. if anyone wants to speak with me i will have time exactly 5 hours or so from now. Aciam888 (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing is just a weird sideshow and ultimately has no bearing on whether or not this page should be deleted. The real issue is showing significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The independence of the "Japanland" book is questionable, the Timeout magazine article is questionable as an RS for art and anyway a single article is not enough to substantiate notability, and all the other sources appear not to be independent/reliable sources. Mr. Cooley may be offended by us questioning whether the sources needed exist, but we have been unable to find them and if they do not exist then this article should be deleted. As an experienced Wikipedian, Mr. Cooley should understand this already. He should also be familiar with WP:DUCK and WP:PROMO. FOARP (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:What are you talking about FOARP? I am not the writer of the article. I have not written in wiki ever until today. lets try to do this together. I am the artist the article is about. I did not solicit the article. I did not write the article. I dont care if the article is deleted or not, i only care about the libelous comments. These are the comments i find defamatory : 1) claiming I wrote or edited the article. 2) insults about my mother writing the article. and now 3) Claiming i am experienced wikipedian. It think you are getting me confused with the person who actually wrote the article and the person who emailed me wanting to fix "my" (meaning the article about me, Adam Cooley) article that was up for deletion. I am not going to keep up bantering with you. I would ask whoever is moderating this to please report this, as i feel I have been the subject of both libel and defamation. Aciam888 (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, your comment above said "I am an experienced Wikipedian", it wasn't clear from the formatting that you were quoting someone else, typically quotation marks and/or spacing are used for that, otherwise it looks like you who is making the statement. Even if you are not an experienced Wikipedian, you now have a chance to familiarise yourself with WP:DUCK and WP:PROMO. As for defamation, nothing written here is defamatory. Probably the best way for the subject of an article to get involved in its production is to take a hands-off approach since otherwise we end up with obvious COI problems.

And again, pretty much everything in what you've just said has no bearing at all on whether this page should be deleted or not, which comes down to the reliability and/or independence of the sourcing. FOARP (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Travelstop[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. Brand new startup. References mix of seed money funding announcements, churnalism, and parent company links. scope_creep (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, recently came through afc, plenty of refs none of which satisfy ncorp, its an advert for a tech startup, given the failure rate of tech startups we should delete and if it survives and comes back with better refs we can include it then. Szzuk (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sure how this made it through AfC but it doesn't meet WP:NCORP. The most recent TechCrunch article is good, but it is only one in-depth piece that is in a reliable source. Everything else is funding or unreliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Dew Schools[edit]

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

Unsourced for ten years. No sources or evidence of notability found. Mccapra (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, google is reporting it permanently closed, no refs in the article, i checked news and books, nothing there. Szzuk (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a totally unsourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hilltoptc (talk · contribs) blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE. Sandstein 08:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crowley Baldwin[edit]

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

Non notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. Single ref points to listal where Schneider has written his own biography. Film career is negligible, and perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. WP:TOOSOON applies. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 18:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin The editor who created the article has moved the page to Brownley Watson. There is redirects at Crow Dunne and Crow Washington. scope_creep (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin The editor who created the article has moved the page again, and renamed the article. The article is now at Roshon Freeman. I think it is clear now that the editor User:Hilltoptc is not here in the best interests of Wikipedia. Even the terrible listal reference page has been updated to make the new name. scope_creep (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're told that In the span of one year he got to visit all the major events, meet many insane photographers, and on top of that made a lot of new friends. I hope that the friends and insane photographers have been able to keep up with the rapid changes to his name. (See also "Claudio Charles Schneider".) No sign of notability, whatever he's called. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: More silliness. Neither the Twitter nor the Instagram page linked at the foot of the article exists. The infobox of this multiply named person has been at one time or another linked to "claudiocharlesschneider.com", "crowleybaldwin.com", "crowwashington.com", "roshonfreeman.com". None of these exists. The author of this article appears to be a fantasist. -- Hoary (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: This fellow's main claim to fame is, we're told, that "He played young Rafael Trujillo in the drama film based on the true story of the Dominican Republic's historic Mirabal sisters Tropico de Sangre." Here is the uninteresting website (single web page) for Trópico de Sangre ("coming soon" -- but I'm not sure that it ever came): No mention of any of this person's names. And no mention here, either. A minor part, or just another fantasy? -- Hoary (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is the article name changed again to Claudio Lee Smith. scope_creep (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't like to spoil Hilltoptc's fun; however, considering that his whimsical name changes are wasting resources and other people's time (see this in particular), I've protected this article from further page moves. -- Hoary (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoary, I never realised your were an admin. I contacted an admin early today, on the fourth move. I thought that was the limit. I find the whole episode quite odd. I'm trying to find a metaphor but cant lay my hands on one. scope_creep (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For my part I apologize for the time it took for me to think of preventing page moves. ¶ So what's going on? Trolling, I presume. (Yawn.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this trolling fantasy per all of the above and keep Hilltoptc from being able to perpetrate such in the future. — Jeff G. ツ 11:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

College of Cambridge[edit]

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

A 'for profit' college, not sure if it even operates anymore. Not accredited in the UK Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like a ten year old hoax, or vandalism, or good faith mistake. Their website is dead and I'm not convinced they ever existed. Szzuk (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Szzuk's analysis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The website is still operating, showing an address in a Glasgow commercial office and advertising a few events such as a presentation on "How to speake like a nativespeaker?" (sic): [10]. AllyD (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to their website they offer "tuition free courses", and courses are "free to their members" - who pay £2850 for membership. I'm sure anyone can buy an unaccredited degree for a lot less. So not a hoax, more like a buy a degree website. Szzuk (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a business whose website is light on detail of degree accreditation (as well as featuring "Lorem ipsum" placeholder text and "Unrolled 20000" which is presumably a claim of student numbers [11]). My searches are not finding evidence that this business meets the WP:NCORP or WP:GNG criteria. AllyD (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So the website still functions but this so-called university surely cannot be notable. It has a photo of Michelle Obama holding a "certificate" on the "Apply" page. This is just a regular small-time business. JamesMatthews01 (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an institution scam, not an article that is a hoax, but the coverage does not show this scam is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Astute point by John Pack Lambert. This is not a particularly well-known scam and so is not notable. JamesMatthews01 (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dubious notability. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As argued well by contributors above this is not a notable subject. Dunarc (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WP:SNOW applies. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Curtin[edit]

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

Hello. I do not see how this passes WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. The subject's notability appears at best very local with a painting displayed "above the bar" at a Gig Harbor restaurant and an award won at the Lake Oswego Festival of the Arts. There is no WP:RS centered on the subject in the article and I have not been able to find any elsewhere. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone from Ithaca, NY made this page made this page and I found out about it. I have worked with non-profits all over Oregon and Washington State and also in Ithaca, New York donating my city alphabet art images art to help raise tens of thousands to worthy causes. Call the Museum of Glass in Tacoma, the Salem Art Association in Salem, Oregon, Hospicare in Ithaca, Family Promise in Spokane, etc. Also my art is in public collections- Lake Oswego, OR.... Should I somehow add this myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.213.32 (talk • contribs)

Note: above comment apparently left by article subject. See earlier badly formatted version of page by IP editor.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article and search turns up only local coverage. Many article sources are not IRS. Clear GNG fail. I'm not sure how the article subject showed up so quickly to the discussion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pernom Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Aldworth[edit]

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

Not a notable person. Daiyusha (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hannah Aldworth is a rare example of a (non-aristocratic) woman with a position of authority for whom we have records who worked at the Foundling Hospital. We also have records through her letters and her bequest to the FH that she was a philanthropist and worked to continue its existence as a institution pioneering social welfare. Georgeeliotismybae (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed. I can see that some may think that every similar woman of her time will, by extension, become notable. What is unusual here is that the records remain and the trust and the local church consider her as notable. The woman who posed for the Mona Lisa was probably not notable .... but she has an article. Victuallers (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Victuallers and Georgeeliotismybae. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see this is one of several new article created by inexperienced editors during a wikithon. Improvements may be needed but I think notability is unequivocally demonstrated. Deb (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notability seems demonstrated. PamD 10:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability seems clear. Atchom (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to List of Guinean films. Per all the others AfDs of List of Guinean films noms of XXXX year by now (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guinean films of 1992[edit]

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

Needs to be redirected to List of Guinean films, like all of the tiny non-notable stubs this editor has created. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nom Spiderone 13:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are three short lists of Guinean films by year - one for films in 1992, one for films released in 2007 and one for films released in 2009. These could be merged with the article List of Guinean films, but this article has films by alphabetical order not by year in which they were released. However, the general article List of Guinean films could be amended so that it has films by year. The separate article on lists of Guinean films by year are too short to have much merit, but if the List of Guinean films article is amended, it will be easier to merge all the information conveyed by these short articles with this more general article. Vorbee (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and Spiderone. Ajf773 (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be draftified / userfied on request via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 08:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Woman (Book of Proverbs)[edit]

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

This is an essay, not a wikipedia article. It should be either deleted or userfied. Jtrainor (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources already used in the article. The style of the article can be amended but the subject is definitely notable, passing WP:GNG regards, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of those are primary sources and thus invalid. Jtrainor (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- + They are all secondary sources Atlantic306 (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator has not understood WP:PSTS. In this context, Bible verses would be primary sources, but the citations are all commentaries. – Fayenatic London 11:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While this article does have some non-primary sources, it does read more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. The text is somewhat confused, stating, "According to Proverbs 6, being a strange woman can mean that you are your neighbor’s wife." It would seem difficult to be one's own neighbor or one's own neighbor's wife. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Yes, it's notable, and yes, the sources are reliable, but this is an agenda driven essay. Fixing it is not going to be a simple matter of going through WP:WTW. The whole structure of the article is arranged to lead up to the final section "The Strange Woman Reclaimed" to promote the feminist position on the subject. Now I'm not saying that the feminist position on women and the bible is wrong, far from it, but it is not the mission of Wikipedia to promote anybody's position. If it were not for the fact that it has usable sourcing, I would be at WP:TNT on this one. SpinningSpark 10:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Spinningspark. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or draftify. I'm changing my recommendation because I don't understand what the point of this article is, in trying to justify the behavior of someone who, within the context of the Book of Proverbs itself, is not meant to be an actual person but rather a symbolic or archetypal character. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect I have to agree with the nominator here. It seems to be editorialized without facts. How do we know if this woman isn’t just a character for this Wise Woman-Loose Woman dichotomy? Where are biographical facts about her like that of a Rahab or Mary Magdalene?Trillfendi (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify I gather that "Strange Woman" is a notable topic in discussion/commentary on the Book of Proverbs. If there is to be a Wikipedia article about it, it should follow WP:NPOV, and cover "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". This doesn't (I don't think). It does have some references, to commentaries, which is fine (I cleaned the references up a bit so I could see how many there actually were), but a lot of assertions are unreferenced. It has other issues too, which others have commented on, and to which I would add that it seems to assume a lot ("the Strange Woman ... has been used to act as the antithetical character to Woman Wisdom" - who, or what, is Woman Wisdom? Is it the same as Lady Wisdom, mentioned later? And the Strange Woman "does not want possessions from you, but wants a man’s life" - I think that means she wants to kill a man, but I first read it as meaning she wants to live a man's life (which would fit with the later comment on "venturing into a male-dominated public domain".) Also, how do you "reap negative consequences on the male’s and female’s perspectives to a woman’s sense of self"?) I know that AfD is not about the quality of the article, but I am probably more confused after reading this than before. So, delete, draftify or even WP:TNT. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 08:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Christian Fun[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Fails at general notability guidelines. Hitro talk 12:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chade-Meng Tan. Not much discussion, but I think we have consensus to not keep this around. Sandstein 08:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Search Inside Yourself Leadership Institute[edit]

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

A non notable leadership organisation advertising its book and course. Szzuk (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has received a lot of mentions in RS considering it is a mindfulness program, but I don't think there is enough in-depth coverage. The article's creator, Stephstern, appears to have a COI as Steph Stern is "Career Strategist and Engagement Manager at Search Inside Yourself Leadership Institute". Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chade-Meng Tan, with whom the program is associated. A suitable alternative to deletion. Nothing necessary to merge. czar 18:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject has notability independent of Chade-Meng Tan, as evidenced here, here (see here for Europeans), and here (Europeans here). I have no personal relationship with the subject. I have noticed there are many articles about Meng, and I can understand the concern for preventing advertising going widespread, but I think deletion of this particular article is not warranted.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are the type I was referring to in my !vote. They are essentially passing mentions, not in-depth coverage. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to disagree. They are not just passing mention; there are many paragraphs about the institute's philosophy.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, in hopes to obtain more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball close for Wikipedia navigation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Inside (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This disambiguation page seems unnecessary, as the main article is the only entry in the list that even has a Wikipedia article. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the other entries are perfectly good dab page entries. Each would be a reasonable redirect if it was a unique use of the title. PamD 09:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cannot understand why Erpert thinks the given reason is a valid rationale for deleting a dab page In ictu oculi (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Acer N series. Sandstein 09:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acer N50[edit]

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

I found nothing that shows notability. The only link in the article is the product page. SL93 (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Acer N series which needs series work done on it to explain the N Series generation computers. Govvy (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that merging an article into a non-referenced article is a good idea, one that also shows no notability. SL93 (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Acer N series; earlier nom, unreferenced comment now obsolete. As a further comment this should likely have been a WP:BUNDLE with WP:Articles for deletion/Acer N311 and WP:Articles for deletion/Acer N series ... there's forks of discussion and inconsistent allocation to lists of deletion discussions between these deletion discussions ... are there any more? ... a bit of a mess.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There are only three articles nominated for deletion. I wasn't aware of the other two articles at the time of the first nomination. SL93 (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Woo[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, whose claims of notability are not properly referenced to reliable sources. Of the eight footnotes here, four are Q&A interviews in which she's talking about herself in unreliable blogs, two more are pieces of her own writing about herself or other things on unreliable blogs, and a seventh is a YouTube video. There's only one reference here that constitutes acceptable support for notability, but one valid reference is not enough to carry a person over the finish line all by itself. As always, the rule is not that as long as the article says notable-sounding stuff the referencing can be just any random garbage you can find in the blogosphere or video-sharing sites: the notability test is not what the article says, but how well the things it says can or can't be referenced to reliable source coverage in real media, and none of the references here are cutting it at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references are not reliable sources. --JAMillerKC (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There's also an album review in the Shields Gazette ([12]), but it's paywalled. Unless someone can find more, I don't there's enough to keep. --Michig (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to CANZUK International. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 09:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Skinner (CANZUK International)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of the founder of an organization. As always, the rule is not that everybody who serves as executive director of a notable organization automatically gets his own standalone biography article just because he exists, but the references here are not properly demonstrating him as independently notable in his own right. Of the 17 footnotes here, one is merely a redundant repetition of one of the others, so there are 16 distinct sources -- but five of them are brief glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite, not substantive coverage about him; four are Q&A interviews in which he's the speaker, not the subject; three are pieces where he's the bylined author of content about other things; two are the organization's own self-published website; and one is coverage of the concept his group takes on as its mandate which completely fails to even mention his name at all. None of these are sources which establish or support that Skinner is notable enough to have a biographical article as a separate topic from his group. There is one source that is more than trivially about him (#3, "Some 70,000 sign petition to end immigration controls between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and U.K.") -- but one good reference is not enough to get him over WP:GNG all by itself as the only GNG-worthy source in play. This is simply not sourced anywhere near well enough, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the very least, as I've written on the article's talk page, even if the article isn't deleted, most of its current content should be. The present article isn't serving primarily as an article about James Skinner the person but as a vehicle for disseminating James Skinner's views about everything. Largoplazo (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of reliable sources demonstrating the notability of James Skinner per se. FOARP (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to CANZUK International which this article is really about. There is ~~minimal~~negligible BLP content. CANZUK International is notable but notabiltiy is not inherited. Have one paragraph about the founder in the CANZUK International article. Aoziwe (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Kaihsu (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pink Floyd. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 09:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Midsummer High Weekend[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCONCERT --wooden superman 15:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Pink Floyd as there's only trivial coverge, but since notability doesn't apply to article content, the Google Books source suffices to this being covered somewhere in some form.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Musicoin[edit]

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently, 6 of the references are releases/blog posts from Musicoin themselves. The other sources is an article from Blockchain News; cryptocurrency news sites are not particularly reliable. Overall, no reliable independent sources. BenKuykendall (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find a single RS mention of this coin. I can find some passing mentions in minor academic sources - David Gerard (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sankara Bhagavadpada[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Provided sources are not reliable, I was unable to find anything more reliable online. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most, if not all, of the sources seem to be published by Sankara himself; therefore not reliable or independent Spiderone 09:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the resources are self published, please explain where you have doubt.NANExcella (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[13], while hosted on a university website, does not appear to have ever actually been professionally published

This article is completely independent reliable resource published on an university website and authored by Dr. Vasudha Narayanan. I think this is the best citation for the article. NANExcella (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[14] is partially written by the subject

The book is completely written by author 'Robert Chamberlain March'. This is not a self-published resource. NANExcella (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It literally says "by Sri Sankara Bhagavadpapa" at the beginning of the chapter that this link goes to. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[15] is on Scribd, not exactly a reliable source

Being on scribd, doen't mean that 'it is not a reliable resource'. You must judge the article by reading and its author 'Altair Meier H'. The article is reliable and independent. NANExcella (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[16] is a database entry, which is not in-depth, and also appears to be written by the subject (it's in first person).

Absolutely not written by the subject the text is written by parliamentofreligions.org

[17] appears to be a faith-healing website, hardly a reliable source (and arguably not independent either)

Definitely an independent & reliable resource written by 'Makarand Paranjape'. NANExcella (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[18] is a non-independent bio on an astrology website.

Agreed it is a biography article but published by hinduworldastrology.net

[19] deserves no comment

Agreed, this is not a good resource.

[20] is another database entry

OK

[21] appears to be a blog of unclear reliability and editorial practices, affiliated with an institute that does not to appear to be notable in its own right. Nevertheless, it is possibly the best source attached to this article.

Yes, it is one of the best resources in the article. 'religion.info' is definitely a good and notable website. And the article is reliable independent of the subject written by RAMESH AVADHANI.

[22] is another faith-healing website

This is an article which is published on an independent website 'healingacademy.org' and it shows the connection between 'Prof. V. K. Choudhry' and the 'Sankara Bhagavadpada'. It is a reliable independent resource.

[23] is not in-depth or reliable

Agreed, it is not in-depth resource but it is a reliable and independent from the subject.

[24] is another database

OK, it is again a biography but published on a reliable website.

[25] is a book by the subject

Completely Agreed with you. This is a book written by the subject but you must check this resource where it used in the article. It is clearly seeing under the Bibliography section and it is a proof that subject wrote this book. NANExcella (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[26] is another book by the subject

My same comment as above. This is a book written by the subject but you must check this resource where it used in the article. It is clearly seeing under the Bibliography section and it is a proof that subject wrote this book.

This leaves "AKHTAR, SHAMEEM (7 May 1997). "The Kalki Craze with Shankara Bhagvadpada". Outlook: 18.", an article which returned one result when I searched for its name on the internet...the result wasa wikipedia link-checker.

Definitely a reliable independent resource published on a notable news website 'Outlook'. Yes, it is also published on website.

All in all, I see no evidence that any of these sources are reliable or independent. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you check independently and in depth you may find many reliable independent citations. And what would you say about two tv interviews one is conducted by 'Aleka Vial' and other is taken by 'Marcos Whoortman'? NANExcella (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just check references used in the article, Not all the citations are self published. Reference could be improve instead of deleting the article. The subject passes the notability.JPL549 (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Striking comment from blocked sockpuppet per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Mz7 (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - content is highly promotional. Deb (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My dear friend Deb, Can you please explain which part of the article you feel promotional? And what is the promotional object? NANExcella (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is from a reliable source.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is completely notable and having enough reliable and independent resources such as msuweb.montclair.edu, parliamentofreligions.org, religion.info, Outlook India, Interview with Marcos Whoortman in 2013 and a science debate with Dan Barker.NANExcella (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no independent, reliable sources that mention the subject in depth. There is practically no mention of him at all in mainstream sources. He does not meet GNG.

[27] Dr. Vasudha Narayanan appears to be well qualified, but no..this piece of writing has not gone through any academic review; its from an unnoficial collection of writings that may be of general interest to scholars- not to mention that it barely references the subject at all anyway, as its solely about Kalki Bhagavan.

"Sankara Bhagavatpada had done his doctoral work in nuclear engineering in Germany. After becoming Kalki Bhagavan's disciple, he decided to work full time in spreading the message of his Lord." is all that it says. It is only a passing mention, and in no way in depth.

[28]This book is clearly self published by Robert March (see the google books "about" and the back of the book) so has not gone through any sort of academic or editorial review. And yes, the subject did write that chapter, as clearly stated in the contents list of the book. Not RS, not Independent.

[29] It was uploaded to Scribd by Altair Meier H, and authored by the subject. no idea where it came from, or if its actually been published anywhere or had any sort of editorial oversight. Could even be a copyvio- who knows what the original licence was. Not RS, Not independent.

[30] This is clearly written by the subject, ergo the first person usage. While staff bios may be written by Parliament.org, this bio is in the members section; members sign up and write their own profiles as part of the create an account procedure.

[31] Faith healing website for a faith healing magazine, which also offers services to "find an expert" and promotes products- largely promotional,so not independent; no list of editors or anything that implies its a reliable source.

[32]Not just any old astrology site..its run by the subject himself. Again, its a self written bio. Its the last thing from an independent source.

[33] May be ok as regards RS..However its barely more than a passing mention with a single paragraph about the subject.

[34]' Again..not remotely independent! the company ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ "A Regd Non-Profit Public Charitable Foundation, established by Dr. Sankara Bhagavadpada" is on the homepage as one of the organizers of the conference!Curdle (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[35] They sell his books; its another self penned/promotional bio. Not independent. Doesnt support notability

[36]and[37] Proof that the subject wrote two non notable books, published by what looks suspiciously like a self publishing company- and there are no book reviews or external mentions of these books written by the subject, so doesnt go to notability.

I checked, I couldnt seem to find anything else RS. Interviews are not usually seen as independent, and don't necessarily confer notability. Was the debate itself mentioned by any reliable sources? Were the interviews? What TV station did they take place on? Do you have further information or links to them? Curdle (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Curdle fails WP:GNG.Please note many references refer to Kalki Bhagavan is a different person that refers to Sri Bhagavan who is a different person.There are no independent, reliable sources that mention the subject in depth. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Blonde Redhead. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kazu Makino[edit]

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

Not independently notable from the band. No solo career and the only source that is not directly about the band is an WP:INTERVIEW where she mostly talks about the band. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to redirect this to Blonde Redhead? Qualitist (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Qualitist: Not a problem the group is clearly notable and this and other band members' names are valid searchs. However there have been a number of editors to the article and rather than just withdrawing and redirecting I would prefer to leave the discussion up and running for a bit (7 days normally) to give other editors a chance to discuss. Alss it was changed to a redirect once already which was reverted so for that reason I prefer to leave the discussion open to gain consensus. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I happened upon this page just now from a search for confirmation on the story behind the song Equus, which are documented events pertaining to Kazu's life and not the band. Lilhinx (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's not how Wikipedia works. It is not a repository of everything that might interest everone. That said that information could be included in an article on the album or the group's page. Notability has to be proven for an article to remain and not just that the information contained inside is interesting. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blonde Redhead per discussion above. Qualitist (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Proficiency Paradox Theory[edit]

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

This is WP:OR; I find no references that discuss a "proficiency paradox" regarding teacher's evaluation ratings. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, its an essay. Szzuk (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No comment on whether or not the topic is a real thing, but the article is irretrievably an essay so it's at least in WP:TNT territory. SpinningSpark 23:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [was "Keep"]. The article posits a paradox and cites numerous off-line sources. I don't quite get the reasoning or understand the evidence from a quick read, myself, but I am not familiar with topic or any of the sources. I think the article could/should be better developed. It seems that the writer(s) valued brevity overly much for my taste, however I believe there is some substance there. I certainly don't see how it is an "essay" though, and I don't agree with Power~enwiki that our failure to have access to the references means that the topic is invalid. I see no evidence this is wp:OR. Someone needs to go to a proper library and request the sources by inter-library loan or whatever, and to develop the article better. The article could be tagged and the need for more explanation could be posted to the Talk page. But wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you google the exact term "Proficency Paradox Theory" (with the quotes to exclude other results) there are just 12 results all wikipedia related. The discrepancy between loads of offline refs and none online is stereotypical of an essay, also the dense text and the fact this is a theoretical concept. It looks like it was written by a college student in the college library so I'm unwilling to accept the authors offline refs without verification independent of the author. Szzuk (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Checking all the sources is quite onerous as there are a lot of them and there are no inline cites to give a clue which are most relevant. However, I've checked every source in the list that has a link. Not one contains the term "paradox", let alone "Proficiency Paradox Theory". One might expect sources early in the list to be the most relevant. The first one is a bit obscure in notation and doesn't have a link, but is actually an Act of Congress as far as I can tell. It's this one which also doesn't mention any kind of "paradox" or "theory". The second one, "Teachers’ motivation to learn", I've requested a copy, but I bet you a beer it doesn't talk about paradoxes either. I'm not going to waste the library's time requesting any more of them. You are welcome to if you want, but a very clear pattern is already emerging – this is rampant WP:OR. Thats enough for me to stick with delete. Crikey, it's in speedy delete WP:A11 territory. SpinningSpark 19:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having now read the source, it says this about educational psychology theories: "In the past three decades, teacher motivation has been defined primarily through social cognitive theory (efficacy) and self-determination theory (intrinsic and extrinsic motivation)." The first one might be readable as "Proficiency Theory", but nowhwere in the paper is that name used (not even any use of the word proficiency) nor is there any discussion of any paradox in any context whatsoever. SpinningSpark 11:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Szzuk's point is fair. And thank you User:Spinningspark for making the effort to check sources, including requesting one by interlibrary loan or whatever. I remove my "keep" vote in this edit. Thank you both. --Doncram (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serato[edit]

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

Fails WP:NM which is lacking in significance, plus it does not meet the WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In-depth coverage in DJ Magazine, New Zealand Herald, Billboard, and others; discussed in several trade published books; more than passes WP:GNG. Isingness (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources New Zealand Herald, Billboard and Oxford University Press books so passes WP:CORPDEPTH , thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Binarization of consensus partition matrices[edit]

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

fails notability check, WP:SELFCITE. See also: sister article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clust on the new python implementation. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to keep wikipedia free of spam and biased self-promotions. However Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clust is not a new python implementation but a new method despite a link between them. I assume (hope) assumptions are done on articles after investigating references for fair judgement. Basel1988 (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is so opaque it is about as far as one can get from an encyclopaedia article for a general readership. Even putting aside questions of notability and COI raised in the nomination, this still fails WP:NOTJOURNAL, particularly points #7 and #8. SpinningSpark 23:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTJOURNAL. Much to technical and looks to just be a showcase for the journal article that proposed it without appropriate secondary coverage. If it ever gains attention in the academic community to satisfy GNG, those sources will put it in more encyclopedic terms for us anyways. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acer N series[edit]

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

No significant coverage for this PDA line. SL93 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. Excelse (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Following improvement article demonstrates WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV on online resources alone let alone offline resources which were typical of its period.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the article was significantly expanded after being nominated for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:HEY as the article now has many new references including significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so that WP:GNG is passed thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY as sufficient sourcing as been provided to pass GNG. Some direct links aren't working, but things like 2nd pages have been archived and so provide indirect links. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Acer N series. Sandstein 09:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acer N311[edit]

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

No significant coverage for this PDA exists. SL93 (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Acer N series, there does not seem to be anything merge-worthy. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn per nominator (Rathfelder). (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nuevo Tiempo[edit]

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

Unreferenced and lacking in useful content Rathfelder (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this should be deleted without first checking what non-English sources (Spanish and Portuguese) may exist for it. (But, I myself lack the requisite language skills to do that.) SJK (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moi aussi.Rathfelder (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This station is a very important Seventh-day Adventist station operated in Brazil that produces programs in Spanish and shouldn't be deleted. I've have added many references to this article, but sadly can't speak Spanish. Catfurball (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as broadcasts widely in latin America and so should be notable regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to withdraw the nomination now there are references.Rathfelder (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Socialbakers[edit]

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

There is no indication of multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing this company in significant detail and is thus not-notable per WP:NCORP. Even if it is notable (which again I see no indication from looking for sources that it is) this page should be TNT'ed given it's borderline G11 status. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article should be definitely thoroughly rewritten using secondary sources, and shortened as well. However my opinion is that the subject is still notable enough to be on Wikipedia. - Darwinek (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not debating its borderline-G11 status and its over-reliance on primary sources, but I'm seeing enough significant references to convince me that it is a notable company. Beyond the references to the company itself, ABC News and the Wall Street Journal are publishing articles that appear to be solely based on results from Socialbakers analytics. CThomas³ (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company has over 3K mentions on Google Books. --Gprscrippers (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Edge Chronicles. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Barkscrolls[edit]

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

The book isn't covered by secondary sources and thus may not meet notability guidelines. Also there are no references used in the article. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other similiar AFD:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there appear to be quite a few books in this series that don't have any refs, it could be a redirect if no refs are found. Szzuk (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Szzuk, I didn't want to mass report them all. But feel free to open up another AFD debate for the other books. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Edge Chronicles, have been uable to find suitable references for a standalone but is a legitimate search term for wikifans of the edge books. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Thacker[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. No significant coverage found for this book author. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am amused at the fact this survived for 11 years now being an unreferenced stub. He fails WP:NBIO per nom, WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in and outside of the article, and fails all the WP:NAUTHOR criterias. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search didn't turn up sources to meet WP:GNG. His co-authorship of some car books (e.g., "Ford Flathead Engines: How to Rebuild & Modify" doesn't provide the means to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Papaursa (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Age of Empires III. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Empires III: Wars of Liberty mod[edit]

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

An impressive mod with an established community, but the topic is a clear WP:GNG failure. In my BEFORE search, I found no sources that would meet WP:RS and WP:VER; indeed, all I could find were WP:PRIMARY sources, forums, facebook pages, etc. The best source I could find was an article [38] (in German) that briefly sums up the mod but does not cover it in detail, as is required by notability criteria. In short, the topic is admirable but not suitable for an encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's the GameStar coverage. There is also HCG101. I don't think I see anything else in the WP:VGSE. My inclination is a merge and redirect to Age of Empires III. --Izno (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough for a standalone article so merge and redirect to Age of Empires III. Pichpich (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Age of Empires III. The GameStar coverage is not really a WP:SIGCOV and Hardcore one is about the regular Age of Empire III. Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my search came up that can be included. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move back to draft. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Story (social media)[edit]

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

This is an almost identical copy of Draft:Story, which was declined by User:AngusWOOF (and later received a more favorable review from User:Darylgolden, but not accepted). In it's current state, it's little more than a WP:DICTDEF. My suggestion is that this should be deleted as a duplicate, and Draft:Story continued to be developed and go through a normal review process. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. At this point, it's been moved back to draft space. I'm going to remove the AfD template from Draft:Story (social media), since that's in the wrong namespace. If somebody wants to nominate Draft:Story (social media) for deletion, they can do so on WP:MfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A story is a collection of ephemeral auto-playing vertical videos" :: Erh?? Why must the videos be vertical? There are very many stories on social media which are text and/or images and not videos. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly Moved back to Draft The creator ignored the AFC review process and tried to create the article regardless. As stated before, this can be redirected to a Social media section in Story (disambiguation) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Appleyard, requesting histmerge of Draft:Story to this one. Thanks AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: I have history-merged Draft:Story to Story (social media). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also consider here page Draft:Story (social media). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vera James[edit]

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

No claim of significance per WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than sufficient notability. The 23 inline cites appended to the article confirm that subject enjoyed celebrity status in her time as a performer and received considerable coverage in the press. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed that this article had been PRODed, and started trying to find and add more references that provide evidence that she was famous in her time (WP:NTEMP), intending to remove the PROD after that. I have added references as I find them, and will prune to the most useful (in case anyone thinks WP:CITEKILL). Now it has been AfDed, I hope it has enough to meet WP:GNG, but will continue to work on it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nice sourcing, RebeccaGreen. I found her obituary and an article about her from 1975 which I added. She passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per improved article and referencing. Looks like insufficient WP:BEFORE. Aoziwe (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY, many additional references have been added to the article to show that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so that WP:Basic is passed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic swap[edit]

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

Cryptocurrency topic with zero sources at present. There's a lot of debate about sources in the talk page, and some adding and removing of sources in recent history. But overall: this page was created in January and still lacks reliable sources. BenKuykendall (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I edited the article a while ago to remove the non-reliable sources and ended up removing them all. Essentially they were all in-house cryptocurrency press hype. As far as I can tell this is a technology that is seldom used. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree there are not enough quality sources, and doesn't adhere to 'Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time'. Tech is too new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btcgeek (talk • contribs) 05:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources present, no RS sources, lots of speculation about how great this is gonna be in the crypto blogs - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Oberman[edit]

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

No claim of notability per WP:BLP and WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've sourced her roles. She has major roles in several films. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have quite sufficient referencing for GNG and NSUBJECT. Not sure how much WP:BEFORE was done. Aoziwe (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As with several other actors recently nominated for AfD, she has also had roles in the theatre, which are not mentioned at all in the article. I will try to identify them and find sources for them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apart from anything else, well-known for playing a major role in one of the defining British TV series of the 1980s. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NACTOR, having had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaxon Rose Moore[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Subject is seven years old so WP:TOOSOON probably applies. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For TOOSOON and lack of valid citations.David notMD (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, IMDb appears to be the only source available, apart from this one [39] but WP:TOOSOON applies I think. Theroadislong (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. This is case of WP:TOOSOON. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 18:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sourcing to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being 7 years old, she is too young to have an article on Wikipedia per WP:TOOSOON. Also fails the GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of Israeli nationality[edit]

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

I hereby nominate this page for deletion. My arguments is that most of the content already exists on other pages; the history parts are well-covered by Zionism, Aliyah and History of Israel and the parts discussing citizenship, immigration laws and Jewish nationality by Israeli nationality law, Law of Return and Who is a Jew?. I think the page was created in response to History of Palestinian nationality, but in contrast to Palestinian and Jewish nationality, the existence of an Israeli nationality is a controversial topic. Jewish and Arab peace activists in Israel have been trying to create one,[40] in order to unite the people, an effort that has been rejected by the establishment that sees it as a threat to the Jewishness of the state. The article is unsalvageable as it discusses the history of something that arguably doesn't exist... It also looks to me like work on the article has stagnated and editors have previously suggested merges and cleanups. ImTheIP (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC) ImTheIP (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a standard sort of article topic, cf.: History of Icelandic nationality, History of Japanese nationality History of Ukrainian nationality ]], History of Dutch nationality and more.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Not trying to disqualify your vote, but can you give some examples of what content you think would be appropriate for the article? ImTheIP (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are other states where two peoples live, think: Belgium. And complicated places like Britain, where Scots continue to try and work identity out. An article on this topic would need to unpack (or at least mention,) topics ranging form the origin and meanings of "Israeli" as an ethnonym, to the complex, shifting, historical layering of local, tribal and regional identities among Muslims, the language and identity choices of Christians, and the complexity of Jewish Israeli identity.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - An article definitely could be developed. Identity as an "Israeli" (as opposed to Jewish or Arab in 1948) was far from a given - and has evolved over the years - to the point that there are separate (from the Jewish community) Israeli-American communities in some portions of the United States (and this is also true in some other countries) - as an expat identity it has evolved, as well as identity within Israel. That being said - the topic having some merit, doesn't mean the present article has merit.Icewhiz (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (draftify also possibly if someone wants to work on this, though I don't think the present article is much use). As I commented on the talk page in a merge proposal - the topic itself clearly has merit as a standalone topic. However, the contents of this article as it stands is a summary/copy-paste of other articles in Wikipedia from 2007 and is very poorly developed - as such it is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK (and out of date one no less) and a dose of WP:TNT is in order. Icewhiz (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, TNT. admitting that I merely glanced at the topic before commenting above. topic is legitimate, but article as written is not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bd2412 T 01:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shamsaldin Qais Sulayman al-Said[edit]

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

The Vanity/promotional biography (possible Hoax) which claims to be of an Omani royal , but the sources are blogs, promo sites and forums. Has WP:REFBOMBS of fake sources and WP:SPS. No source to prove why this person is notable. Can't find either. An IP had raised concerns on the talk page about the authenticity of this article. Also, Notability is not WP:NOTINHERITEDDBigXrayᗙ 00:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

KEEP This is clearly not a genuine request for deletion as these so called blogs are ISSN registered international newspapers and official government documentation. This user cites restricted comments and edits by a banned IP user as their sole reason. The most ridiculous case of trolling I've seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameera Patel (talk • contribs) 01:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC) — Ameera Patel (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of LewisChu (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 08:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of being called a troll [41], I would prefer to see some sources that prove this person is notable. Please provide the links that satisfy WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources--DBigXrayᗙ 01:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 03:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure if this person is notable. I was able to find this source which seems credible (but one is not enough) Alsahawat Times. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Willthacheerleader18 Thanks for your kind comment. the link you gave above says Alsahawat Times is owned by the subject Shamsaldin Qais Sulayman. So that site is not only dodgy but WP:SPS as well. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above statement along with the fact that after a more intense search I can find no credible secondary or independent coverage of this supposedly royal person. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Sources: https://mygov.nl/news/2018-09-20-shamsaldin-qais-sulayman-al-said.html noted that this is only one source, all be it a credible one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.69.145.120 (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above Site mygov.nl is not a reliable or official site, although it tries hard to appear one. per https://www.whois.net/ , mygov.nl is registered in denmark and appears to me as a self published promotional site. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as highly suspect without copious quantities of unimpeachably reliable sources, xref Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The International Press and Media Group and [42] and this diff ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete Ask Tuki, as related page failing GNG (sock removed previous prod) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hydronium Hydroxide Agree that this other article should also be deleted for same problems, I have AfD'ed it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ask Tuki--DBigXrayᗙ 11:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the WP:REFBOMBING (including passing mentions, IMDB and even forums), this article does not show why the subject is notable at all. Nothing to be found in my BEFORE search. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JonTron[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am aware the previous discussions over this page's deletion.

However, it is looking increasingly likely that JonTron is not notable even with the loosest interpretation of wikipedia's guidelines. He has not made any videos in nearly a year, has had no appearances in the news. The only reason it looks like his approval was ever accepted was his short lived controversy. This combined with multiple discussions on the JonTron talk page makes me think this is the case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Personauncommitted (talk • contribs) 13:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my points above. Short lived fame and questionable notability do not mean a wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Personauncommitted (talk • contribs) 13:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and early close. Notability is not temporary. Previous discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JonTron (5th nomination)) was "keep", not "no consensus". We do not need to re-legislate this article every two years. –IagoQnsi (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Personauncommitted is a brand new editor -- creating this AfD is their first and only edit. –IagoQnsi (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I stand by my statements in the last discussion, the sources do not measure up to the reliable quality sources we need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is still notable even if he hasn't made a video in a year. Just because there are no more videos doesn't mean we should delete the article. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, think there's enough here in terms of sources to pass WP:GNG. — 🦊 03:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IagoQnsi. Raymond1922 (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is ridiculous, JonTron's notability has been discussed at length by this point. After his rants and the subsequent fallout, reliable sources only have reported more on the person. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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