< 11 October	13 October >

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

The result was redirect to List of Dollywood attractions. Sandstein 12:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blazing Fury[edit]

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

Non-notable roller coaster. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads like an ad Thebryan01 (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That by itself is not a reason for deletion. While articles certainly shouldn't read like an advertisement, some can be fixed by editing. While I certainly think this page should be deleted, your rationale is not by itself a valid reason. Just saying it reads like an advertisement without actually demonstrating that the only sources that exist are promotional will carry no weight nor will it be considered by the one closing this deletion discussion.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Likewise, both List of Dollywood attractions and Dollywood#Areas of the park could probably be reworked.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a fair point, my bad. I guess I agree on y'all's reasoning, that the article doesn't appear to be about something noteworthy. Google News only has a couple that I saw. Maybe redirect? Thebryan01 (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could you link me to which sources you found?—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also if this does get redirected, List of Dollywood attractions would be the proper target.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - [1] and [2] I didn't think that by itself was enough, though I guess maybe some more digging could come up with more sources? Thebryan01 (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        That first source doesn't even mention Blazing Fury at all and that second one is mostly a trivial mention. So far all I've found through Google/Google News is roller coaster/amusement park databases and trivial mentions, both which don't seem to satisfy WP:GNG.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems like a better option, a redirect would be useful to the main article on Dollywood. I found more reliable sources, but all with more or less trivial info or mentions: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], possibly if this is a reliable source [10]. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 00:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of which quite meet WP:GNG, but since we now have a proper merge/redirect target, I guess WP:BEFORE applies.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned List of Dollywood attractions would be a good article to redirect, but also possibly Dollywood#Areas of the park? Though unlike other amusement park articles on Wikipedia (a good article example being Cedar Point), Dollywood's doesn't have a definitive attractions section as of yet to redirect to. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 00:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, both List of Dollywood attractions and Dollywood#Areas of the park could probably be reworked.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. Always room for improvement. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 17:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of screen readers#Software aids for people with reading difficulties. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ReadPlease[edit]

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

Greatly fails GNG. No assertion of notability independent of the official website or download pages. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I added one reference and there are some mentions of this product relative to other similar assistive technologies, but I don't see sufficient to establish notability of this particular product beyond the list at List_of_screen_readers#Software_aids_for_people_with_reading_difficulties. AllyD (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_screen_readers#Software_aids_for_people_with_reading_difficulties, where it is mentioned. The ref AllyD found is enough verifiability to be worth the mention at List_of_screen_readers#Software_aids_for_people_with_reading_difficulties and it seems like a plausible search term. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 18:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above since there is at least one quality source discussing the subject. Bharatiya 29 14:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota, 2018. I assume that the "delete" opinions are ok with this as well. Sandstein 12:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Feehan (politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Until he's elected this is just a campaign advert. Cabayi (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL also notes that "such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.'"

Coverage of Dan Feehan in reliable, independent sources:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/this-minnesota-district-is-one-that-could-decide-control-of-congress https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/25/politics/cnn-house-key-races-minnesota-north-star/index.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/10/04/watch_live_president_trump_holds_maga_rally_in_rochester_minnesota.htm http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/10/05/minnesota-jim-hagedorn-dan-feehan-district-profile https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/10/10/feehan-vs-hagedorn-minnesota-1st-congressional-district-voter-guide

Htriedman (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Htriedman, Editorofthewiki, the sources listed show that the race is notable, not that Feehan is notable. A redirect, as the page was originally created, could be appropriate up to the point of the election. Cabayi (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep I believe that we should procedurally keep all candidates for election who are nominated for deletion within 30 days of the election, unless the article violates any other Wikipedia policies. If the subject does not win their election, we can revisit the discussion on November 7. --Enos733 (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enos733, can you point me at a discussion where this change of policy was agreed please? Cabayi (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy, but it should be common sense. At some point, the length of the AfD will span the election, which changes the notability of the subject. Also, at some point, this encyclopedia can be used as an element of a campaign. --Enos733 (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All major candidates are going to attract routine coverage in the media. That does not mean they are notable per our standards. WP:BLP1E applies here. AusLondonder (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for office are almost never notable, and Feehan is no exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He is not merely a candidate for office, he held a position of authority in the Pentagon in addition to his other history. Bare candidacy would be insufficient, but other reliably-sourced biographical details should also be considered. And those details are presented in a neutral manner; this is not "just a campaign advert." Kablammo (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no automatic presumption of notability just because an article states that the subject held a position of authority in the Pentagon either, especially when the position the person held doesn't even have an article about it. To make that a notability claim that got him into Wikipedia in its own right as "preexisting notability for other reasons" that overrides the candidate vs. officeholder distinction in NPOL, we would need to see that he was getting media coverage in that role at the time he held it. But there's no evidence of that being shown here at all — the only source being shown for his military career is his staff profile on the Department of Defense's own self-published website about itself. Companies or organizations do not self-render their own staff notable enough for encyclopedia articles just by having staff directories on their websites, however. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you staying that the United States Department of Defense is not a reliable source on its own structure and personnel? Should we convert it to a direct quote? Kablammo (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it's not a trustworthy source for the question of whether he worked there or not — but what it doesn't do is make the fact that he worked there a notability claim. To earn an encyclopedia article on the basis of having worked at the Pentagon, it would take evidence that the media cared enough to produce and publish journalism about his work at the Pentagon, not just a staff profile on the Pentagon's own website. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, Bearcat. I agree that the issue is whether he is notable apart from his candidacy. We do know that the Pentagon position he took was formerly held by Frederick E. Vollrath,[11] which apparently was the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness and Force Management, now the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. I am no expert in this area, but Feehan's DoD bio lists him as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, which I suspect is right under the Deputy (also see [12]).

The only question here is notability-- not when, or by whom, or why the article is created. And that notability should not be based on his candidacy; and that candidacy should not be counted against him. Kablammo (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat. Since every candidate in every electoral district across the United States is always going to get campaign coverage during the election, the fact that some campaign coverage exists is not an instant free GNG pass that exempts a candidate from having to pass NPOL — every candidate would always get that exemption if it were, and then NPOL would literally have no meaning at all anymore and we'd just be Ballotpedia. To get a notability pass on campaign coverage, rather, a candidate's coverage has to explode to proportions that make him or her a special case over and above most other candidates. But that's not what Htriedman's links above are showing, either in volume or depth. Obviously he'll get an article next month if he wins the seat — but to already have an article today just for being a candidate, the test he would have to pass is not whether he's newsy today, but whether he could lose the seat next month and still have a credible reason why people would still be looking for an article about him in 2028 anyway. Bearcat (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands, fails WP:PROMO as it was created in September in support of his campaign. We can recreate it if he wins the election. SportingFlyer talk 09:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tired of articles on American candidates for office. The Department of Defence is a RS for for military bios but being a captain in the Iraq War and winning the Bronze Star does not meet WP:SOLDIER. Being a candidate for office does not, except in really exceptional circumstance, meet WP:NPOL. People should know by now that articles on candidates should be created in the user space or draft space and moved to the main space if and when they get elected to office. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons expressed above. I give his candidacy no weight, but his position in the Pentagon, and his selection as a White House Fellow (of which there are less than 20 per year, according to our article) are sufficient. Kablammo (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those things are notability freebies that exempt a person from having to clear WP:GNG on the depth of reliable source coverage given to them in those roles — a person is not guaranteed an article just for being a White House Fellow if the only source for that information is the primary source website of the White House itself, or for working at the Pentagon if the only source for that information is the Department of Defense's own self-published website itself, while media coverage about his work in those roles is lacking. The notability test is never just what an article says the subject did, but rather always depends on how much media coverage they did or didn't receive for doing what they did. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota, 2018 per standard practice; the ongoing RFC looks unlikely to change that practice. I'm not convinced by any of the arguments that there's coverage/notability apart from the campaign; the primary source bios published by his employers don't meet WP:GNG (and the positions don't meet any SNG), and other coverage is WP:MILL coverage of the campaign. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per our usual practice and WP:NPOL/WP:POLOUTCOMES. Marquardtika (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota, 2018 as per usual WP:NPOL/WP:POLOUTCOMES with unelected candidates lacking other notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Dasher[edit]

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

Unsuccessful candidate in an election. No other claim to notability--virtually all coverage about him related to that campaign. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 20:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. All candidates for office receive routine coverage during elections, this does not mean they have lasting notability per our standards. Notability is not inherited from "famous" relatives. AusLondonder (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete unelected candidates for congress are rarely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL, coverage is only from the election. SportingFlyer talk 09:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People don't get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win, but there's no other credible claim of preexisting notability for other reasons here and there's nowhere near enough reliable source coverage to deem him a special case who's markedly more notable than every other unsuccessful candidate in every other district who also got this much campaign coverage. Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a unsuccessful candidate for office does not meet WP:NPOL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed politician who fails WP:NPOL. Cabayi (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL.

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

YouScience[edit]

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

promotional paid article for non-notable company. All the references are local, except for one brief treatment in a combination article. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Inclusion of the company's product as one of several briefly discussed in the Entrepreneur article is insufficient for notability. The remaining references to fund-raising and local usage of their products verify that it is a company going about its business, but are also insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. There is also a 2014 paper {[13] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) about the company's product, though it has affiliated co-authors. Overall I am not seeing sufficient for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harem Scarem (folk band)[edit]

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

Other than this mention in passing, and once you separate this Scottish band from the Canadian one of the same name, there doesn't appear to be any substantive discussion of it in reliable published sources. Doesn't appear to automatically qualify under WP:BAND, and not enough material to qualify it under WP:GNG. All three references given here are about a performer named Will Oldham who is accompanied during some of his performance by this band-- these are all actually about Mr. Oldham, not "Harem Scarem". A loose noose (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I almost voted keep based upon confusion with the canadian band of the same name. Refs are intertwined on google but anything worthwhile isn't about this band. Szzuk (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 14:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a short biography at AllMusic. Added as a ref to the article. Gab4gab (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm a bit lukewarm on this, but coverage in AllMusic, Uncut, and the other sources currently cited are probably enough for a basic stub article under WP:NBAND #1 and #7. There is more background on the band in (brief) reviews of their albums, such as [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. On the other hand, the nominator is correct that a lot of their media notice is about how they backed other people. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Unifor. Sandstein 12:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unifor Local 1285[edit]

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

Article about an individual local of a national labour union, not reliably sourced as having any strong standalone notability as a separate topic from the parent organization. As always, national or international organizations do not automatically get to spin off hundreds of subarticles about each individual local chapter -- but the references here (which are contextlessly listed, rather than footnoting anything in the body text) aren't really providing strong support for independent notability: two are much more about the plant that the union members work at than they are about the local per se, and the other three are about the parent organization rather than this particular local. This is simply not enough sourcing to make Local 1285 independently notable as a separate topic from Unifor as a whole. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Unifor article. Nom is correct, but this Local seems to have a strong importance within Unifor and woithin the community of Brandfort, as witness that the article for this local is longer and better-sourced than the main Unifor article. Emass100 (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AGK ■ 21:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hafarah[edit]

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

Unsourced. Fails WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. Pin points to scrubland in area West of Kalba. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, uncited, inaccurate three-word article. Softlavender (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced —AE (talk • contributions) 07:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anglicanized as Ahfara on UAE road signs per Google Street View and on OSM, this settlement clearly exists per primary sources/satisfies WP:GEOLAND. Recommend a move. SportingFlyer talk 07:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move per SportingFlyer. Satisfies GEOLAND. James500 (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It remains unsourced and not notable as a settlement in its own right. It wouldn't pass review as a new article, for sure. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A simple Google search for Ahfara doesn't bring up much, but does bring up stories like: [19] [20] and is mentioned as a village here [21] Article can be easily sourced. SportingFlyer talk 21:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment two sources added to article. I'm sure there are more out there. Recommend a move to Ahfara. SportingFlyer talk 07:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss SportingFlyer's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move. In addition to SportingFlyer's arguments and evidences (which I checked and found them persuasive), I see the utility of miniature stub articles like this one for teaching, travel, and research of all types. Differently from self-promotion and ideologically slanted POV articles, entries about places, regions and settlements should have a place in an encyclopedia like WP. This one in particular, does have reliable sources to justify its existence. They just need to be included, properly. Den... (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging, if desired, can be discussed on the talk page if people want to discuss it. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National team appearances in the UEFA European Championship[edit]

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

This page is unnecessary and is simply content forking from the records and statistics page. Furthermore, there is really no evidence of notability in the subject along aways. Ilovereo222 (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ilovereo222 (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge No, it's not duplicated. There's information here that's not there. If you want to merge it, that's fine. But you'd have to actually put the content there before you delete it here as a content fork. Smartyllama (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can merge it. I'll do it right now. Ilovereo222 (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, just keep in mind the notes on WP:MERGE re maintaining proper edit attribution. Smartyllama (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I was comparing this with the other article mentioned in nom, parts of this article nominated for deletion look better than the other statistics article. I think we could do we merging the better represented information, there are duplicated parts we don't need know. Govvy (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable and not needed. Giant Snowman 15:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment now that Ilovereo222 has moved a lot of the information over to the records and statistics article, I believe we'll need either a histmerge or a redirect from here under CCL unless we end up keeping it in both places. Smartyllama (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge) (like with National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup, etc). Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I oppose a merge to List of UEFA European Championship records as that page is too large already. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paper.io[edit]

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

Non-notable mobile app. MER-C 18:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NVG. No sources available except passing mentions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Sam Sailor 06:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Sandstein 12:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One people under one God[edit]

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

Neologism used by one person, without any sustained media coverage except mentions in news articles about some of his rallies, and several opinion pieces created after the rallies without any future consequences. This may merit a sentence in the Donald Trump article, but nothing more. wumbolo ^^^ 17:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or if appropriate merge and redirect. Apologies in advance for the length, there's a lot of sources here to analyze. Analysis of sources is as of this revision: [22]. #1 is the Huffington Post, which is a relatively partisan source. Especially in the area of politics itself, partisan sources aren't generally reliable. #2 is a brief mention in passing. #3 is just a Bible passage, only very tangentially related. #4 covers it a bit, in context of analysis of Trump's speech in general, but I'm not sure of the reliability of the reference and it's regardless a pretty brief blurb. #5 only mentions in passing. #6 is the American Humanist Association, not particularly reliable and of course will have a clear position on the matter. #7 looks like an internal periodical for a specific organization, unknown reliability and certainly doing nothing for notability. #8 is NPR, certainly highly reliable, but is about the role of religion in his campaign in general and only mentions the specific phrase in passing. #9 is a blog, nothing more to be said there. #10 is RedState, another partisan source, and again those should be treated extremely carefully in terms of reliability on political topics. #11 is again about Trump's campaign and religion in general, with only a passing mention of the particular phrase. #12 is a partisan source ("liberal bias" right in their "About Us" page), so same caveat as before. #13 is the Inquisitr, which an RSN discussion found to be an unreliable source: [23]. #14 is again a brief mention in passing. #15 is a brief mention in passing and only of a passingly similar phrase, not even the one in question. #16 is just a quotation of the statement as part of a larger quote and isn't even about that portion of his speech. #17 is, again, just quoting it a part of a larger quote, and the article isn't at all addressing that portion of it. This is reference bombing of every single thing that can be found that mentions the thing in passing, but no number of unreliable sources and passing mentions add up to notability. This subject isn't notable for a standalone article, and at most should possibly be briefly mentioned in a parent or sibling article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I do think there's quite a bit of info here that is great on Trump's use of this phrase. However, the "After 2016 elections" section appears to be original research, as the sources cited in that section don't refer to the article topic at all. This means that there's not been WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this topic and that this topic does not deserve its own article per WP:NOTNEWS. Let's merge this into Donald Trump and the article on his presidential campaign. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per user:Seraphimblade and user:FenixFeather The article does have legitimate sources and coverage, but I think it fits better with DT. Rosario (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - opposed to merging but if it must be merged, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 is a better target. Not sure about the source analysis above; why is American Humanist Assn being impeached for instance? As a source of the religious significance of the phrase I think they are fine. What would be better, Christianity Today? Same problem right? It is significant because it is significant, not because of or despite who said so. And merging a full article to "a sentence" seems arbitraily dismissive. I think it's been shown that it had lasting significance during the campaign even with physical manifestations (the Trump Unity Bridge float/trailer). ☆ Bri (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bri, with the American Humanist Association, they just don't have what's defined for a reliable source: A high reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. Nor would I really expect them to; publishing isn't their primary focus. But that does preclude their use as a particularly reliable source. They're also a position-based organization, and while I personally tend to agree with their positions, that does require treating them with caution as a source. When I checked RSN, it looks like Christianity Today was considered rather sketchy and somewhat partisan, so I doubt that would qualify as very reliable either. But ultimately, we need substantial numbers of sources that fully meet reliability, and cover the subject in reasonable depth, not just quote or briefly mention it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way to POV based article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Too POV" is a classic argument to avoid in deletion discussions. POV can be fixed per alternatives to deletion. Deletion is supposed to be based on notability or outright BLP, copyvio or other major policy violation. Bri.public (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. There's only enough coverage to justify an article if you discuss all sorts of "one nation" constructions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Lacks sustained coverage. The merge target should have a hatnote distinguishing this topic from Pledge of Allegiance (United States) § Addition of "under God". — Newslinger talk 10:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 per Seraphimblade's analysis of sources (though I'm not sure I understand their problem with HuffPost, which is generally reliable—see WP:RSP). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 22:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the content is suitable for stand-alone article and is properly referenced. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per Linguistical. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mind of Jake Paul[edit]

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

This is not a documentary, it is a video blog that uses outdated methodology and arm chair diagnostics. Fandangos121 (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Opinions on the validity of the methods of this piece of media aren't relevant to keeping it on Wikipedia or not. Neither is whether or not it's a documentary. It has received much independent coverage and is clearly notable. See here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. Linguistical (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Munteanu[edit]

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

Fails both WP:NBOX and WP:NACTOR. PRehse (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence that he's a boxer (his name doesn't appear at boxrec.com) and none is given in the article. As for being an actor, he's appeared in one short film. Even if his role in Creed II is significant, and we don't know since the film has not come out yet, he would fail WP:NACTOR which requires "significant roles in multiple notable films". All coverage relates to his upcoming role in Creed II and I don't think that's enough to meet WP:GNG (more like WP:BLP1E). At best, it appears this article was created WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- agree this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yes, fails NBOX/NACTOR as well as WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Sam Sailor 17:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nothing provided by any of the keep votes to suggest that the subject of never having qualified for a world cup has gained sufficient significant coverage as a topic in itself to satisfy WP:LISTN. Note this is different than coverage of any given country not qualifying, where there may be coverage but it is synthesis to aggregate this and assume that an overall list is notable Fenix down (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of national teams with no FIFA World Cup appearances[edit]

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

fail WP:NOTSTATS maybe merge if necessary Hhkohh (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I would agree that the AFC and UEFA pages with no team appearances are useless, the FIFA World Cup is much more notable, enough so that subpages like these can be included. Also, there are useful stats on the page. Ilovereo222 (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup if feasible, otherwise keep. This may be more difficult to merge than the other two due to its larger size. Regardless, the information should be covered somewhere, whether in a standalone article or as a section in another. Smartyllama (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:GNG, Unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK of unless statistics. Govvy (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain where the content fork is happening. This may not be notable statistics, but if merged, it can be included in a larger article. Ilovereo222 (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovereo222: Content fork, or a reverse fork of National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup, it's just pointless statistics. As User:Hhkohh pointed out, WP:NOTSTATS, and this looks a clear case of indiscriminate collection of information to me. Govvy (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's not what a content fork is, unless you expect the average reader to have committed every FIFA member to memory. Also, WP:ITSUSELESS is not a reason to delete. Smartyllama (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSELESS Is a good enough reason to me to delete, but I do notice you pretty much say keep on most things regardless of wiki policies. So don't mind me if I don't want to listen to you anymore cheers. Govvy (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I find this page useful. But just as WP:ITSUSELESS is not a valid argument for deletion, WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument to keep. So how "useful" this page is or is not is rather moot. Smartyllama (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be an indiscriminate list for even a second, as there are at most 200 items that could possibly be in the list. SportingFlyer talk 03:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ridiculous cross-section of items for a list. Also against a merge. Sergecross73 msg me 22:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's worth noting that All-time Olympic Games medal table includes a list of countries which have never won a medal, and there are similar examples on other pages, so a merge would not be without precedent. Smartyllama (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But that’s meaningless unless it was kept in there as a result of some consensus from a policy-based discussion. Otherwise, youre just pointing at another mistake to justify this mistake, which isn’t valid. Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of those cases where we have to be careful to be overruled by rules. Yes, there's policy on stats, but there's policy on page size too. There's policy on forks, but there's policy on over-loading articles with too much information; indeed there is guidance to advise editors to divide articles if things look too unwieldy. In this specific case, I believe that the benefit of the doubt should be given to keeping the article. It provides information in an easy to understand way, leaves the "parent" article to do what it sets out to do with its title, and steers away from trivia by compiling existing statistics rather than creating its own. doktorb _words^deeds 17:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But there are some problems with keeping it. There are no sources to the statistics, so who even knows if the statistics actually exist or if someone was making it up. Also, the parent article isn't long compared to most other articles, and this is a very short article, so keeping this article makes no sense. I still stand by my nomination. Ilovereo222 (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Badgering every single keep !vote isn't going to get you anywhere. Smartyllama (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]
Struck the above comment because I thought you were someone else. In fairness, my confusion was understandable. You !voted keep. Now you're saying there are problems with keeping. Which is it? You also say you "stand by [your] nomination" but you're not the nominator. And neither this article nor the parent article are particularly short. Perhaps you commented on the wrong AfD? Smartyllama (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the case. My bad. Ilovereo222 (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per SmartyLlama. It's a valid list topic, formatted as a chart, and isn't unexplained listings of statistics. SportingFlyer talk 03:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would also like to state I am against any merge. Govvy (talk) 08:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds? There's no reason not to have this information per WP:ATD, it's a valid list per WP:NLIST and something you might find in a football encyclopedia. SportingFlyer talk 09:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean on what grounds? Because it's a collection of stats without any verification! How you can merge a list which fails basic WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a collection of statistics, at best it's a single statistic presented in list format. There's also [24] There's also articles such as these which discuss individual nations that have never made it [25] and statistics on qualifying [26] and we have a map on the World Cup page with the best ever finish for each country - it makes sense to have a list of countries who have a value of zero on that list. SportingFlyer talk 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WorldAtlas.com is okay, other two seem WP:TABLOID, and yet, these citation are not used in the article! Don't expect everyone to go do research, people will vote on what the article is and what is there. GNG still applies!! Simply saying this, that and the other. Wikipedia is fact driven, if the material isn't supported by any sources... well... And we don't need statistics on everything. Govvy (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[27] may be the best source as it contains the complete list of countries which have never qualified. A lack of citations doesn't mean an article can't be kept per WP:NEXIST! SportingFlyer talk 13:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable and not needed. Giant Snowman 15:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - a merge to National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup is also fine. This is content that would certainly be included in an almanac; there are plenty of references about individual countries never having appeared in a World Cup. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of national teams with no UEFA European Championship appearances[edit]

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

fail WP:NOTSTATS, maybe merge to other articles if necessary Hhkohh (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with National team appearances in the UEFA European Championship or List of UEFA European Championship records (depending on the AfD result of the former) as it can be adequately covered in a section on that article. Smartyllama (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not merge. The subject isn't notable enough to have this on a separate page, and even with that this is needless trivia. Why not include Japan or Brazil since they haven't qualified either? Ilovereo222 (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's obvious to any halfway intelligent reader that they haven't qualified. By that logic, why not include basketball teams ~~or club teams?~~ Smartyllama (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read the title. Ilovereo222 (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've stricken the club teams part. But I'm keeping the basketball team part, as applied to national teams, since by your logic they're "national teams" and should be included in the list. Smartyllama (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also read the first line of the page (after the deletion template). Ilovereo222 (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should still be obvious to any intelligent reader that only UEFA teams can qualify for the UEFA Championship. And if you really think it needs to be noted explicitly that this only includes UEFA teams because only UEFA teams can qualify, go ahead and add it. That's a content issue, not a deletion issue. Smartyllama (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But I won't add it until the deletion discussion is over. Hopefully it will be deleted. Ilovereo222 (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To all delete voters (except Ilovereo, who addressed this already) why not merge, given a alternative to deletion has been proposed? Smartyllama (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Smartyllama: Have you read WP:NOTSTATS? Govvy (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: It's literally a statistics page. it's literally in the name of the page. If you don't think it should exist, put it up for AfD too. But as long as a statistics page exists, it should include, well, statistics. And there should be no problem with merging other statistics pages to that one. Smartyllama (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

umm, Smartyllama NOSTATS says To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. There isn't one independent source!! Govvy (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy You could easily source the table. [28] - look, none of these countries qualified for Euro 1960. [29] - none of them qualified for Euro 1964. And so on. And I could find multiple sources establishing each of those claims if I really wanted to. But I don't have time for this. Now, these sources are clearly WP:ROUTINE, which is why a merge rather than a keep is appropriate. 20:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

- - - - @Smartyllama: This is not called passing WP:GNG Hhkohh (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed. Hence my vote to merge rather than keep. My comment was merely addressing Govvy's comnment on lack of reliable sources. I thought that was abundantly clear from my previous comment, my apologies if it wasn't. Smartyllama (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ridiculous cross-section of items for a list. Also against a merge. Sergecross73 msg me 22:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's worth noting that All-time Olympic Games medal table includes a list of countries which have never won a medal, and there are similar examples on other pages, so a merge would not be without precedent. Smartyllama (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But that’s meaningless unless it was kept in there as a result of some consensus from a policy-based discussion. Otherwise, youre just pointing at another mistake to justify this mistake, which isn’t valid. Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, WP:OSE isn't a valid argument at AfD but I didn't read it as the argument: consistency is important and welcome, which is why we have WP:SSEFAR. SportingFlyer talk 10:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a useful list. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National team appearances in the UEFA European Championship. I have absolutely no idea how this is fails WP:NOTSTATS, as it's a valid list per WP:NLIST, presented in an easy-to-understand chart form, and constantly referenced in articles about European qualifying (search "country name" "never qualified" european championships, it's a defining trait of these teams). It does need to be referenced, though. That being said I see a lot of delete votes that seem to me to be nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. SportingFlyer talk 02:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a valid list, because it would require a few reports from independent sources. From what I see there are no such sources. Like you said, it must be referenced. Furthermore, just because a lot of delete votes seem to you as WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't mean that that's what the vote is. Please back up such claims with examples of delete votes that you think are claiming WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ilovereo222 (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NOTSTATS (this is a short exhaustive list, not indiscriminate statistics), the "delete per noms", WP:NOTUSEFUL, and the "ridiculous cross-section of items for a list" votes. And independent sources do exist, you can either source every country individually, each qualifying round individually, or something comprehensive like this (which needs an update): independent sources such as [30] or even primary sources such as [31] for each round. WP:NEXIST applies. SportingFlyer talk 12:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NLIST, Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. is absolutely satisfied here. The question really is, what's the best way to source the data? SportingFlyer talk 12:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, with the sourcing, as of right now, the only possible way to source this information would be to include sources that contain all of the countries that participated in each European Championship. However, no one will look at all of the sources just to see if "country x" has or has not participated in a European Championship. Whether a country hasn't participated in a European Championship is of no interest to most readers who just want information about the European Championship anyways. Ilovereo222 (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:ITSUSELESS and WP:NOTINTERESTING. Neihter of which are valid arguments. And we've already explained sources exist. What part of that don't you get? Smartyllama (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then source them if you think sources exist. I'd much rather see the sources than see the fact that "sources exist." Ilovereo222 (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at either of the ones above, which list all teams which attempted to qualify through 2008, or all teams which attempted to qualify by tournament year? SportingFlyer talk 21:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. But if you think that is a proper source, then source it on the page. That's not a deletion issue. Ilovereo222 (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am also against any merge. Govvy (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable and not needed. Giant Snowman 15:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National team appearances in the UEFA European Championship, purely as an editorial decision; it's better for readers to see teams with 1 appearance and teams with 0 appearances on the same page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not really notable (teams are notable for what they do accomplish, not what they do not) although unlike other delete !votes I would not be against a merge to an appropriate article. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost OG[edit]

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

Full of WP:OR non WP:NPOV comment WP:SOAPBOXfails WP:N at best redirect to Cannabis strains Dom from Paris (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Filled with sources that would normally be removed as not reliable. We've had problems with low quality variety/strain articles that are often result in PROD or AfD, and this looks to be the same as those other "varieties" that are regularly deleted due to lack of coverage. There's nothing for inclusion at Cannabis strains (strong sourcing is needed there), and without significant mention in sources, a redirect doesn't really look useful here either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete brand spam. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz Anderson[edit]

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

Sources inadequate for establishing WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Artist is still young in her career, but doesn't yet meet any of the WP:NMUSIC criteria. Needs some major label releases or WP:CHART success first. Teemu08 (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eurovision Song Contest 2019#Calls for boycott. Redirecting, since the title is a reasonable search term and most of the delete !voters explicitly noted that it was superfluous to the section on the main page -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision boycott 2019[edit]

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

I redirected this to Eurovision Song Contest 2019#Calls for boycott, but was reverted by the article creator. This article is a WP:POV nightmare and is more appropriately covered in the article for the event. feminist (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete If they boycott, and nobody cares, will we then need an article? Lives somewhere between WP:PROMOTIONAL and WP:CRYSTAL. Mangoe (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject of the article is significantly reported in the news and the article represents a full image of the subject unlike the subtitle in Eurovision Song Contest 2019. I think the subject of boycotting the Eurovision 2019 should have a background section and other sections this can't be under a subtitle but in a whole another article. I don't think that there is any POV in the article and if there is then you can modify it instead of deleting the whole article. The subject of boycotting Eurovision is still going in a timeline and each day there are news about it, it's odd to not make an article about it. Here are some examples and this is just a drop of a sea [32], [33], [34], [35]. The article isn't about whether there will be a boycott or not but about the call of boycotting Eurovision and it's impacts. The subtitle in the Eurovision article wouldn't give the reader a full image of the subject which again is significantly reported in the news.

SharabSalam (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those sources can be used to expand the calls for boycott section in the Eurovision 2019 article. Like this and this can be added to Ireland's section simply explaining that RTE won't impose santions on employees that chose to boycott Eurovision in Israel. This source can also be incorporated easily into the same section and expand on the small portion that already mentions Irish celebrities boycotting the event. Iceland's choice not to boycott Eurovision in Israel is already documented in their respective section. However adding this source to the article won't hurt. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 15:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: agree. However, what you said doesn't dismiss my point that there should be a new article to give the reader a full image of the subject. Instead of making it a subtitle in a section in Eurovision 2019 article. The reason why I shared all of these sources is because I see many news about the call of "boycotting Eurovision" and yet there is no saperated article in Wikipedia about it. A new saperated article would give a full image of the subject and the article can be improved. SharabSalam (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The section does give a comprehensive image of the topic at hand without the need of a separate article however this doesn't mean that the section is perfect. Things can always be improved upon, however there is simply not enough information on this particular topic that warrants a separate article that will just repeat what the section already states. Instead of trying to split the section into a separate article work on improving the existing section already found at Eurovision Song Contest 2019 and if you need help or guidance the kind folks that regularly edit Eurovision related articles will be glad to help you on the talk page. If anything happens to change as the contest approaches this can always be revisited but at this moment there isn't a need for a separate article on this topic. Also copying over content from Eurovision Song Contest 2019#Calls for boycott to Eurovision boycott 2019 (Rev diff) in order to flesh out the article won't help matters much. There needs to be substantial new developments not already covered by Eurovision Song Contest 2019#Calls for boycott before considering a new article just for this topic. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 18:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you. The section does not give a comprehensive image of the subject and there are updates each day here is an example from today [36] and if we kept updating the section it would be unrelated to the article of Eurovision song contest 2019 I think it's important to make an article so that we can update the subject of boycotting Eurovision and at the same time not ruin the article of Eurovision song contest. SharabSalam (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your ref says "it was due to finance". Withdrawing due to financial reasons is not a boycott. Dorsetonian (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly Salt to prevent recreation: All relevant information about the boycott can be found at Eurovision Song Contest 2019#Calls for boycott. At most this source can be incorporated into the section but we don't need a big list of everyone listed in the article. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 14:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: It looks like there won't even be a mass boycott, and even if there were it doesn't its own article, as Eurovision Song Contest 2019#Calls for boycott depicts the situation fine. The article itself would need massive cleanup anyways. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no boycott actually occurring, and not enough in Eurovision Song Contest 2019#Calls for boycott to justify a split. OZOO (t) (c) 15:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have supported a Keep of this article had any boycott gone ahead. But as of now it is not going to happen.BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and BabbaQ among others. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Eurovision Song Contest 2019#Calls for boycott AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That would add too much of unrelated information at the Eurovision 2019 article. The already existing content in the section is enough to describe the situation. —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 21:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary WP:CFORK. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from the fact that 95% of the article is a copy of the Calls for boycott section at the Eurovision 2019, this article seems to have been created just to advertise the BDS movement. The article's title seems to have been made in such a way to promote the boycott. The article just seems to go against WP:POV and WP:PROMOTIONAL. —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 20:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Eurovision Song Contest 2019 as a fork. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Only part of the delete comments that had any weight was the WP:CFORK. The boycott itself is a part of BDS Movement There are many events that never occurred but were still notable. (such as the 1940 Summer Olympics, the 1940 Winter Olympics, and the 1994 World Series) There is enough coverage to warrant inclusion. We should expand both Eurovision Song Contest 2019#Calls for boycott and this article. There are NO WP:POV issues! I would like to you point some to me. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:POVFORK of section in Eurovision Song Contest 2019#Calls for boycott. The title is a bit WP:CRYSTALBALLy - as is Eurovision 2019 for that matter, but we can probably assume Eurovision 2019 will take place (and there are preparations for it) - though there isn't much to write about there (So per WP:SIZE - no need for a fork). If the boycott turns out to be an actual event (in the future), as opposed to a reaction/call - there might be scope for a fork - but that is better assessed in the future. Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As WP:PROMO for a political cause, and as an unnecessary WP:POVFORK of Eurovision Song Contest 2019#Calls for boycott. Sourcing is extremely weak/thin, there are whole subheads sourced to Wiwibloggs; to vmalmo.se: [37]; to the political blog Liberal Democrat Voice. with sourcces like this, there really is no argument for a stand-alone article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, already covered in Eurovision Song Contest 2019#Calls for boycott, unnecessary fork. Sam Sailor 05:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, the calls for boycott aren't significant enough to warrant an article. The "Calls for Boycott" section on the Eurovision Song Contest 2019 article is enough. ThatJosh (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal ar Rumaylah[edit]

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

Cruft, fails WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. A 23ft hill? Pin points to Bidaya. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete need more than a mere gazetteer entry to justify this. Mangoe (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails the GNG ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A hill? 23 feet high? Give me a break. Softlavender (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, or even that anything notable has ever happened here. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 21:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Repurposing and other improvements do not require an open AfD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unconscious bias training[edit]

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

This article seems to draw from a very small pool of authors and appears to have been assembled largely of recent and fringe research( very few pages over the last 20 years, and then a few more but quite recently). Additionally much of the provided citations are APA styled with only the year, having the associated bibliographical metadata missing. This suggests that its contents may have largely been lifted form a single essay. It seems to have come into existence last year largely form contributions of only 2 authors, which may explain this phenomenon.

Either it does not does not belong on the Wiki WP:Notability, or should be part of the Implicit stereotype article.v Alternatly I would recommend incubating it see Incubation Ethanpet113 (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm having some serious problems with this. On the one hand, some GBook hits talk as if such a thing existed (though I'm having a lot of trouble with the searching: most "hits" don't seem to contain the phrase). The problem is that if it be a real thing, then there should be textbooks/manuals backing it up, and from what I see, there aren't any. I can't see WP as the place to write such a manual, even in summary form. I'd like to see more responses on this before I commit to a position. Mangoe (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Try gscholar instead for better results. SpinningSpark 14:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those hits all have the same problem I noted: they mention it, but they do not describe it. If there is real training, then there are training manuals and the like. Where are those? I am not getting hits on them; it tempts one to write an article for one of the major policy mags doing research on how it's all BS. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Training manuals are self-published by companies doing the training, so even if publicly available, will not be considered RS. Videos and courses clearly do exist though, just follow some of the ads. As for scholar, the Noon source clearly discusses training in depth. I don't have access to the Wall Street Journal source, but the snippet shows that it is much more than a passing mention with at least two encyclopaedic statistics that could be incorporated in the article. the Williamson source has the term in the aticle title and is clearly entirely about the subject. I'm seeing others that are more than passing mentions. SpinningSpark 15:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unconscious bias training has become an ubiquitous part of the management toolkit. Numerous companies offer courses. RS discussing this exact phrase are readily found. I've got nothing to say about the merits of the article as it now is, but the subject itself is easily notable. SpinningSpark 14:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not bad enough to require WP:TNT. This is a clearly notable topic, just given all the major news coverage on various companies like Starbucks doing mass unconscious bias training, as well as the training that some police departments have undergone in response to Black Lives Matter. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add on, here's just a few sources I found that discuss unconscious bias training in depth and in detail:

A meta study of studies on effectiveness of unconscious bias training [38]
Detailed Atlantic article about Starbucks' unconscious bias training process and effectiveness [39]
Psychology today article on implicit bias training [40]

– FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per FenixFeather. The links supplied are useful. Indeed, it is notable enough. Rosario (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose as general Bias training. See [41] [42] [43]. Starbucks and the Deparment of Justice are not psychologists. wumbolo ^^^ 17:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
per above source discussion, keep Mangoe (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Salgado-Reyes[edit]

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

Fails general notability for people WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Listed as "novelist" but per the article work amounts to one unfinished novel (no source) and a handful of self-published short stories with little to no independent coverage. Sources are Amazon & IMDb listings, Google reveals nothing of note for the author or the works. Awards mentioned direct to an obscure online poll whose results are unclear. "Non-literary career" as a store detective and undercover investigator unremarkable, references are a few human interest press interviews as a private citizen as well as LinkedIn and Facebook pages. Additionally the level of detail in unreferenced quotes from and statements about the subject raise suspicions of conflict of interest. ThirtyDollars (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Article also reads like a "vanity page". I apologise for the poor formatting, I am travelling at the moment, done on mobile.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately. There is no evidence yet of notability. If the newly published book gets a broad recognition or any other of his works become notable, then we should come back and revive a better and updated version of this article. But for the moment, its presence in WP diminishes the quality of the encyclopedia and trivialize our work as editors. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 20:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shady Morsi[edit]

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

Non-notable, local politician, fails WP:NPOL, no sources found to support WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. No article on Dutch Wikipedia, btw. Sam Sailor 12:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 12:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 12:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete members of party comissions on a specific subject are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no notability claim here that would constitute an WP:NPOL pass, and no good sourcing for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG — the only non-primary source here is a photograph of the whole committee, not substantive coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought this was a hoax. As it stands, none of the sources count, and the only thing that came up in a search of him was a twitter account - I recognised his face in the second article, so perhaps it's not a hoax, but we absolutely can't keep what is basically an unsourced WP:BLP. SportingFlyer talk 09:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NPOL and no sources to support WP:GNG (or even any claim in the article). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of AFC Asian Cup national team droughts[edit]

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

I don't think this page satisfies the conditions to be a stand-alone page. First, I tried researching the subject matter online, and there are almost no sources that are not from Wikipedia or other sources that use Wikipedia content (those sites literally copy the whole thing). The other major concern is that the information on this page is mostly original research with no third-party to back up claims. Overall, this clearly fails WP:NOTSTATS, and the content should definitely be removed or at most merged with the main page. Ilovereo222 (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:NOTSTATS Hhkohh (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced and WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless statistics. Govvy (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and all users above. 21.colinthompson (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a useful list. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable and not needed. Giant Snowman 15:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - list articles should reflect lists that exist in actual sources instead of being crafted out of thin air]. Harambe Walks (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National team appearances in the AFC Asian Cup (assuming that page isn't deleted); I agree with the delete voters, but the page is over 5 years old and there's a valid redirect target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as stated above better than I can, this article clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTSTATS in multiple ways. If sources can be found to back up these statistics of the national teams then I would not be opposed to poer~enwiki's proposal. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per power-enwiki. SportingFlyer talk 07:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Al Alam[edit]

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

In March 2008, a number of mountain stubs were bulk created by user Johncarter for the UAE from a geographic names database generated from the 1987 UAE Gazetteer published by the U.S. Defense Mapping Agency. However, it's impossible to WP:V any of these articles - they have only one source and they all fail WP:GEOFEAT. Furthermore, the single source may not be reliable - a number of settlement stubs were recently deleted for failing WP:V. I'm nominating these stubs in bulk because they all come from the same source and have no other information other than names and coordinates.

I am also nominating the following articles:

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

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

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

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

SportingFlyer talk 11:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because there is a named settlement or area (like Al Aqah) in a place called X, doesn't mean any nearby feature can be tagged as 'Jabal X'. Fails WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, fails V ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. Sloppy, inaccurate, misleading nonsense by someone who knows nothing of the area. Softlavender (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Beltrame[edit]

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

Hoax article. No player by this name has played for Cronulla. Jevansen (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - speedy even I cannot find any such person. Aoziwe (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, name should appear in List of Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks players and hundreds of sources relating to the professional sports team otherwise. Ajf773 (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It's a hoax. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Hoax by blocked sock. Tera TIX 12:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Kumar (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF draftified already once and recopied to mainspace with no improvements by creator. WP:TOOSOON Dom from Paris (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete: fails WP:NFF the article has no history, draft has history. It should remain in draftspace for now. Once it passes NFF, or WP:GNG; the draft can be moved to the article space. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the title since repeatedly recreated[44] per WP:FUTURE film has not released yet and no coverage other than trivial mention. Note: that a draft version already exists at Draft:Prem_Kumar_(film).--DBigXrayᗙ 12:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Muthrad[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, fails WP:GEOLAND. Co-ord is not a mountain. 725ft is hardly a mountain, either. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've updated the coords from Geonames. It does land on a (low) peak outside Fujairah City, FWIW. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom's intrepretations. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Inaccurate nonsense. If it in fact exists (as yet undetermined and disputed), it is merely a non-notable hill, not a mountain. Softlavender (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Thawban[edit]

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

Questionably sourced, inaccurate stub by an admin who created almost 100 'settlement' stubs in the UAE that have since been deleted. The map co-ordinate points to a random hillside (not a peak or mountain in its own right) and has no elevation. Not a 'Jebel' or mountain. Fails WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. I shudder to think of how many of these stubs there are out there. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Place and article fails WP:V ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Grossly inaccurate unresearched three-word "article" by someone who should have known better. Softlavender (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He cited "Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates. Washington, D.C. : Defense Mapping Agency, 1987." but there's no page number, no ISBN, etc :( WhisperToMe (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Hafarah[edit]

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

Questionably sourced, inaccurate stub by an admin who created almost 100 'settlement' stubs in the UAE that have since been deleted. The map co-ordinate points to a gentle valley and the elevation of 160 feet for a 'Jebel' or mountain, is ridiculous. Fails WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. I shudder to think of how many of these stubs there are out there. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inaccurate grossly misleading four-word "article" created by a wildly inaccurate editor. Softlavender (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails V and GeoLand ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delfast Inc.[edit]

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

Notability appears to rest on one of its products achieveing a Guiness World record. The article hardly mentions the company and the refs are nearly all regurgitated press releases - almost all the photos are identical. These are neither reliable nor independent. What little remains does not meet WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are search links using only the name "Delfast", which are providing more sources compared to the "Delfast, Inc." one listed above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment – Included few RS, as that of ′European Cycle Logistics Federation′. --Gpkp (u • t • c) 04:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is WP:ARTSPAM and grossly fails WP:GNG. None of the sources have in depth coverage and it may just be too soon. Praxidicae (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. SpinningSpark 12:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Praxidicae Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Duffy[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and most likely WP:NFOOTY. No confirmed appearances in a fully-pro leagues. Despite being a part of KCW MLS team, he only played for the reserves. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Even many of the sources out there are just trivial mentions or sources associated with the subject. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 09:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and from what I see fails WP:NFOOTY also. Govvy (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and all users above. 21.colinthompson (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable soccer player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Lacey[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and most likely GNG as well. -- BlameRuiner (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even a Google search shows this greatly fails GNG. Even the references that are on this page are either "No page found" or barely talk about Glen Lacey at all, making them trivial mentions and thus useless in establishing notability.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 09:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Played games in fully professional leagues, so would appear to meet WP:FOOTY on that basis. However, this article needs work. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 20:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Weak delete, as I discovered--to my surprise, that the League of Ireland is not considered fully professional. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 01:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although the page states he was at Sunderland, no evidence is provided that he actually played for the club. Otherwise, the League of Ireland Premier Division is not a WP:FPL, and thus the player fails WP:NFOOTY. Additionally, of the six links on the page, only two exist and both are WP:ROUTINE coverage, so fails WP:GNG on current evidence as well. 21.colinthompson (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nominators assessment, fails WP:NFOOTY Finnegas (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opéra bouffon[edit]

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

Duplicate of Opéra bouffe. Yann (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's clearly not a duplicate of "Opéra bouffe". In fact, the article says "The term is sometimes confused with the French opéra comique and opéra bouffe." If Grove has 2 distinct entries, so should Wikipedia. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michael Bednarek. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michael Bednarek. I've added sources to the talk pages of both Opéra bouffon and Opéra bouffe which would allow for further expansion of each + some further reading (albeit in French) to Opéra bouffon. Voceditenore (talk) 08:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we say there is indeed a problem, not quite simple enough to solve by a deletion and/or redirect? Opera buffa defines Opéra bouffon as a fr. equivalent, while Opéra bouffon has a hat note warning against confusion. Like bouffon, Opéra bouffe doesn't attempt a definition that would distinguish it from the other two. If we are to believe that La belle Hélène and Orphée aux enfers actually represent distinct genres, an explanation is really in order. Sparafucil (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Make redirect to Opera buffa#Opéra bouffon, now that I realize my confusion about which article had the hatnote. I'm still unenlightened about exactly what bouffe means. Sparafucil (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the 20th century it came to be a sort of French slang for stuffing yourself with food. e.g La Grande Bouffe. However, that was not the derivation of the term as used in the Théâtre des Bouffes-Parisiens which in turn gave the name to the genre of operas produced there. Offenbach apparently chose the theatre's name as an allusion to the more chic Théâtre-Italien which produced Italian opera buffa and was sometimes informally referred to as les bouffes See [45]. Voceditenore (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michael Bednarek.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 09:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michael Bednarek. Softlavender (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michael --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gerda Arendt – They're separate topics. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michael Accesscrawl (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Adelman[edit]

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP and / or not independent of the subject's company, Campus Apartments. Created by Special:Contributions/Jeremy112233, currently indef-blocked for abusing multiple accounts: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeremy112233. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear violation of policy under WP:NOTPROMO. Additionally, notability is a clear problem once the promotional copy-driven sources and the seemingly legitimate NYT and WSJ articles (which are by the subject and about a deal the company made, respectively) are discounted. Bakazaka (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rerum Novarum Centre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Looks to fail WP:GNG but it also operates in languages that I do not master. Largely based on related sources and plain listings. The Banner talk 07:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Andreas Philopater requested an undelete of this article and Graeme Bartlett accepted it. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Rerum_Novarum_Centre. Porkchop GMX 16:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, softdeleted and requested back as No participation in deletion discussion; would at least like to take a look at what was deleted. As far as I know a softdelete and undeletion with a non-content argument allows me to re-nominate. The Banner talk 17:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn’t know. Porkchop GMX 12:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The China Daily, The National Catholic Reporter and National Taiwan University are all significant sources independent of the article subject. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above by Andreas Philopater, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Essays can't be treated in the same manner as guidelines. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 16:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew M. Schuster[edit]

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

Non-notable military bureaucrat with no sources other than the DoD's own rote bio page Orange Mike | Talk 03:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject was a flag officer, which makes him notable, as can be seen here. Packerfansam (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. General officers are notable per WP:SOLDIER. We have always held this to be the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

query I thought that only applied to those who were general officers while in active service. If I read this correctly, he was a general in the reserves, not when he was on active duty. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The National Guard of the United States's lower ranks are part time, but all the uppity-ups are usually full time officers - I think we generally would say this passes SOLDIER(2) - my issue, however, is that SOLDIER only creates a presumption of notability.Icewhiz (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does it mention "active service". A general officer is a general officer. There is no difference in rank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:SOLDIER. I think there is enough on him to create an article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles should have multiple sources that are indepdent of the subject. This article has one source from the subjects employer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is not cleanup. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:SOLDIER. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Jennings[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

One of far too many stubs on non-notable oldsters that GRG editors dumped on Wikipedia years ago. There's almost no information on the subject herself (it seems largely by her own choice), and all of the coverage is laughably routine. Simply happening to sing O Death convincingly enough to keep having him spare her over for another year, even if she did so for long enough to become the oldest person in an arbitrarily defined geographical area, does not itself confer notability enough for a Wikipedia article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE 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 pretty much just trivia on how she relates to other peoples longevity milestones or longevity milestones for various jurisdictions. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, and ironically, one of the only things said about her is that she disliked being in a different encyclopedia. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on four different lists, where they are easier to view, so this article is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Redirect to appropriate list per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. Nothing in this article that isn't easily handled in a list somewhere. Other than fluffy longevity trivia about her various positions on lists she was born, worked as a teacher, never had kids and then died. There is never going to be more than those 4 life details to say about her so better off on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programmes broadcast by CITV#Former programming. Consensus that there isn't sufficient notability demonstrated and that a redirect is suitable. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Can Do That (UK TV series)[edit]

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

Unreferenced 11 year old article that does not establish the TV show's notability. – numbermaniac 05:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programmes broadcast by CITV#Former programming Unremarkable kids game show with an unremarkable format, reception and ratings accompanying it. Nate • (chatter) 16:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List of programmes broadcast by CITV#Former programming Yesterday some references have been added to the article, but none are still worthy enough to establish notability of this show. Two of the sources are coming from a site that is just listing the episodes (so basically an episode guide), so they contribute nothing to this case. And the third one is just a Top 18 list of game shows in some context, which is not really a reliable or significant secondary source. Fails WP:GNG and WP:TVSERIES. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it would qualify under WP:TVSERIES as it was a nationally broadcast show. Pretty sure there are sources, the problem is that these sources aren't likely to be easily available online, an issue for old TV shows. Hzh (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: WP:TVSERIES does not say the show is notable only if it is a nationally broadcast show, only that it is *likely* to. Also says In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. This show does not have sources to back it. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The word "likely" is there to encourage you to think more about notability of the subject, because such shows by their very nature would have coverage in the media. As I indicated, many older TV shows are hard to source even for some major shows, given that many of these sources are not available on the internet. I'm pretty sure that there was coverage if someone is willing to look into the archives of newspapers. (I remember reading about the show even though I have never seen it.) Hzh (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without deletion: No reason has been given as to why the content should be deleted and not just redirected, as a lack of notability doesn't prevent reusing the content (and references) in another, more notable article. Modernponderer (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- When I proposed this AFD, the article was unreferenced. Now that there are references, yes, the content could be used elsewhere. – numbermaniac 00:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. As an additional note, it's important to keep in mind that per WP:GNG, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tricontinental Chile[edit]

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

There are two problems with this article. First, there are some notability concerns as I am unable to find many RS for this, although there maybe some Spanish language sources that I haven't looked into. The bigger problem though is that I feel that this just a trivia article (see WP:TRIVIA). I have not heard of this concept before, and while I think its neat, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. funplussmart (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this goes, it'll be on WP:GNG concerns and the fact this concept isn't really talked about significantly in English. There's a bit in Spanish about Chile's tri-continental nature, especially in teaching schoolchildren geography. For instance, not the best source since probably not significant coverage but it definitely mentions the tricontinental nature of Chile: [46] However, this isn't trivia: WP:TRIVIA discusses lists of trivia in articles, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't talk about geographical articles like this. SportingFlyer talk 05:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I realize that now. I still think there are some significant notability concerns though. And I still don't think Chile's transcontinental nature needs a Wikipedia article. funplussmart (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please, consider our own language limitations before submitting an article for deletion. The concept is a legitimate scientific inquiry (see here). The Spanish language article is, as expected, better sourced (see here). The fact that it is a little-known topic outside of Chile does not warrant landing in AfD. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 20:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Someone please close this AfD as withdrawn. I am now convinced this article should be kept. I need to take a break from posting bad AfDs. funplussmart (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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